The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect: A minimalist perspective

The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective.

General Editors Werner Abraham

University of Vienna / Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Elly van Gelderen

Arizona State University

Advisory Editorial Board Cedric Boeckx

Christer Platzack

Guglielmo Cinque

Ian Roberts

Günther Grewendorf

Lisa deMena Travis

Liliane Haegeman

Sten Vikner

Hubert Haider

C. Jan-Wouter Zwart

Harvard University University of Venice

J.W. Goethe-University, Frankfurt University of Lille, France University of Salzburg

University of Lund

Cambridge University McGill University

University of Aarhus University of Groningen

Volume 133 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect. A minimalist perspective by Jonathan E. MacDonald

The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect A minimalist perspective

Jonathan E. MacDonald Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data MacDonald, Jonathan E.   The syntactic nature of inner aspect : a minimalist perspective / by Jonathan E. MacDonald. p. cm. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, issn 0166-0829 ; v. 133) Substantial reorganization and expansion of the author’s thesis (Ph. D.--Stony Brook University, 2006 Ph.D.) presented under the title: The syntax of inner aspect. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1.  Grammar, Comparative and general--Aspect. 2.  Grammar, Comparative and general--Syntax. 3.  Minimalist theory (Linguistics) 4.  Slavic languages--Aspect.  I. Title. P281.M24

2008

415’.63--dc22 isbn 978 90 272 5516 7 (Hb; alk. paper)

2008031393

© 2008 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

This book is dedicated to Jessica, a well of motivation in my life.

Table of contents



Acknowledgments Preface List of abbreviations chapter 1 An introduction to the syntax of inner aspect 1. A brief introduction to inner aspect  1 2. Two independent properties of English inner aspect  4 3. Previous syntactic accounts of inner aspect  7 3.1 No explicit account of achievements vs. accomplishments  8 3.1.1 Double functional projection approaches  10 3.1.2 Single functional projection approaches  14 3.1.3 A non-functional projection approach  18 3.2 Explicit accounts of achievements vs. accomplishments  21 3.2.1 Megerdoomian 2001  21 3.2.2 Ramchand 2003  23 3.2.3 Travis in prep  25 4. An outline of the present syntactic account of inner aspect  27 5. The rest of the book  29

xi xiii xv

1

chapter 2 31 The syntax of eventives 1: An aspectual projection 1. The durative phrase  32 2. An aspectual projection between vP and VP  37 2.1 The object-to-event mapping  38 2.1.1 NPs enter into the object-to-event mapping, not DPs  38 2.1.2 The aspectual interpretation and distribution of mass nouns  40 2.1.3 Agree with Asp: The syntactic instantiation of the object-to-event mapping  43 2.2 The sequence of similar events interpretation  45

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

3. 4.

2.2.1 The aspectual interpretation and distribution of bare plurals  45 2.2.1.1  The contribution of the bare plural to the sequence of similar events interpretation  49 2.2.1.2  The sequence of similar events and other multiple events interpretations  50 2.2.2 Bare plural movement to Spec, AspP: Eliciting the sequence of similar events interpretation  52 The domain of aspectual interpretation  54 From chapter two to chapter three  60

chapter 3 The syntax of eventives 2: Event features 1. Event structure  64 1.1 Event structure modifiers  64 1.1.1 Accomplishments, activities, statives, and event structure modifiers  64 1.2 Event structure and tense entailments  68 1.2.1 Accomplishments, activities, statives, and tense entailments  69 1.3 A first look at achievements  72 1.3.1 Achievements and tense entailments  72 1.3.2 Achievements and event structure modifiers  73 2. Event features  73 2.1 The nature of event features  73 2.2 The aspectual syntactic structure of (PP-)accomplishments and activities  75 2.3 The aspectual syntactic structure of achievements  77 3. The interaction of the object-to-event mapping and event structure  80 3.1 Valuing Asp and interpreting event features  80 3.2 Aspectual calculation at the phase  84 3.3 Syntactic derivations of aspectual predicates types  86 4. From chapter three to chapters four and five  89 chapter 4 A lexical derivation of achievements 1. A Hale & Keyser lexical derivational approach to achievements  95 1.1 Verbs of inherently directed motion and their goal/source orientation  100 1.1.1 Achievements and event structure modifiers again  104

61

93



2.

3.

4.

Table of contents 

More lexical representational structures  106 2.1 Monadic lexical projections  106 2.2 Locatum verbs  108 2.3 Deadjectival verbs  110 A prediction: The lack of accomplishments in the lexicon  112 3.1 Formulating the prediction  112 3.2 Testing the prediction: Accomplishment idioms  114 3.2.1 Idioms that superficially resemble (PP-)accomplishments  116 3.2.2 Potential accomplishment idiom candidates  121 3.2.2.1 Glasbey’s accomplishment idiom candidates  121 3.2.2.2 McGinnis’s accomplishment idiom candidates  126 3.2.3 Accomplishment idioms are idiomatically combining expressions  129 3.2.4 Accomplishment idioms and the importance of syntax  132 The consequences of this approach to achievements  135

chapter 5 Minimalist variation in inner aspect 1. Intra-linguistic variation: English statives vs. eventives  139 2. Optional variation: Stative-eventive alternations in English  142 3. Cross-linguistic variation: Russian vs. English  144 3.1 No AspP in Russian  145 3.2 Event features in Russian  149 3.2.1 Targeting and interpreting event features  149 3.2.2 Lexical vs. superlexical prefixes  154 3.2.3 Superlexical prefixes, telicity and speculating about za 3.2.4 Lexically prefixed verbs are achievements  164 3.2.5 A brief note on Russian statives  165 4. Minimalist variation and Bulgarian briefly  166

137

162

chapter 6 169 The autonomy of inner aspect 1. Lexical autonomy  169 1.1 Event features are independent of heads  169 2. Syntactic autonomy  171 2.1 Aspect is independent of case  171 2.1.1 The object-to-event mapping is a relation with Asp  172 2.1.2 Accounting for Finnish case and aspect  174



The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

3.

4.

Semantic autonomy  178 3.1 Event structure is independent of lexical meaning  179 3.1.1 〈fe〉 on Asp  179 3.1.2 〈fe〉 on big V  182 3.1.3 〈fe〉 on P  183 3.2 Event structure is independent of thematic relations  188 3.2.1 The object-to-event mapping and proto-patients  190 Concluding remarks  192

chapter 7 A consideration of other aspectual facts 1. Resultatives  193 1.1 The independence of resultivity and telicity  194 1.2 PP and AP resultatives  194 1.3 Way and fake reflexives  198 2. Conatives  201 3. Psych-achievements  203 4. Another aspectual property of NPs  208 chapter 8 The syntactic nature of inner aspect and some speculative remarks 1. Summarizing the system  211 2. The syntactic nature of inner aspect  214 3. Some speculative remarks  215 3.1 A possible alternative: AspP as a feature  215 3.2 A possible correlation  217 Minimalism and two types of variation  220 3.3 3.4 Aspectual variability is not free  222 3.5 Entailing totally affected objects  225 References Index

193

211

227 237

Acknowledgments This book consists of a substantial reorganization and expansion of my 2006 Ph.D. dissertation from Stony Brook University The Syntax of Inner Aspect. The change in title is representative of the revision and expansion carried out here. The dissertation is an initial exploration of how current syntactic mechanisms can be applied to capture a certain range of inner aspectual properties. In the present book, I maintain these same mechanisms, but approach them from more of a minimalist perspective and explore the implications of such an approach for the syntactic nature of inner aspect. I owe acknowledgments to several people who have contributed in various ways to make this book a reality. I begin with Kleanthes Grohmann and Richard Larson both of whom were instrumental in getting this project off the ground. Kleanthes made the initial contact that created the opportunity for this book to be published. Richard showed positive support early on which proved to be a valuable component in the editors’ decision to publish this book. Thanks to both Richard and Kleanthes for their support. Thanks again to Kleanthes for the time I taught at the University of Cyprus in 2006. He helped me develop a clearer understanding of Minimalist concerns. This has guided the general direction the book has taken. Thanks to Predrag Novakov for inviting me to give a two-week course on inner aspect at the University of Novi Sad, Serbia in October of 2007. The course helped me reorganize the presentation of the material that appears in this book. Moreover, the interest and feedback from the students proved to be quite stimulating for its development as well. Thanks to Tanja Milićev for organizing my visit in a way that turned out to be productive for the book. Thanks to Carlos de Cuba for initiating the contact that led to my visit there. Thanks to Jaume Mateu and Teresa Espinal for comments and discussions on earlier versions of chapters four and five. Thanks to Werner Abraham for detailed comments on several chapters of the book. All errors, of course, are my own. I would also like to acknowledge discussions and feedback from audiences at Cyprus Linguistic Forum, FDSL 6.5, XVII Conference on Generative Grammar, and the Workshop on Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations at the University of the Basque Country where different parts of the book were presented; they helped shape the book.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

Part of the discussion from chapter two can be found in MacDonald, J.E. 2008. Domain of aspectual interpretation. Linguistic inquiry 39(1): 128–147. Part of the work on this book was carried out under a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science (project HUM2006-13295-C02-02), for which I am grateful.

Preface The main goal of this book is to explore the syntactic nature of inner aspect from a minimalist perspective. Under a minimalist approach to language “Issues relating to the interface become of central concern.” (Chomsky 2000: 96). Since any exploration of the syntactic properties of inner aspect naturally involves an exploration of (at least) the syntax-semantics interface, a minimalist inquiry into inner aspect takes on more importance if “the relation of the generative procedure to the interfaces is asymmetrical, [conceptual-intentional (CI)] taking precedence: optimization is primarily to the CI interface.” Chomsky (2007: 12). A better understanding of the syntactic properties of inner aspect can provide knowledge about the CI interface and, consequently, knowledge about the nature of the generative procedure. The starting point of this book is a new observation about English inner aspect: there are two independent properties at play. One is related to the object-to-event mapping property (i.e., the ability of an NP to affect the aspectual interpretation of a predicate); the other is related to event structure. The object-to-event mapping and event structure are two independent properties. These two independent properties motivate two distinct mechanisms at work in English inner aspect. With respect to the object-to-event mapping, I argue for the presence of an aspectual projection, AspP, between vP and VP. Agree with Asp is the syntactic instantiation of the object-to-event mapping. With respect to event structure, I argue for the existence of interpretable event features that enter the syntax on certain heads, and which express whether the event has a beginning and/or an end. These event features contribute to interpretation and are active in the syntax. The independence of these two properties lends itself to an approach to language variation in inner aspect in which one of these properties is variant and the other universal. If languages make a one-time selection from a universal feature set (Chomsky 2000, 2001, 2004, 2007) then languages will differ by the features that they do not have in common. We will see that there is evidence that AspP is present in English, although absent in Russian. Interestingly, we will also see that within English we find the same variation: AspP is present in eventive predicates but absent in stative predicates. Cross-linguistic variation and intra-linguistic variation show the same patterns of variation. This is not entirely unexpected from a minimalist perspective on the assumption that “less machinery is better than more” (Chomsky 2000: 144 n. 60). For, if we do not have to mark elements that vary cross-linguistically differently from elements that vary intra-linguistically, we reduce the number of elements entering into computation. Thus, from a minimalist

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

approach to inner aspect, cross-linguistic variation and intra-linguistic variation are arguably formally indistinct. If the object-to-event mapping is the variant property (i.e., the presence vs. absence of AspP), then event structure (i.e., event features) is the invariant, universal property. Considering Russian, we see that although it lacks AspP, there is evidence for event features in its phrase structure. Furthermore, event features lends themselves to being universal, in as much as the mapping to the CI interface is uniform (Chomsky 2004, 2007). First, event features are interpretable, and therefore by definition, legible to the CI interface. Second, whether or not a c-command relation holds between these event features plays an important role in their interpretation. C-command is arguably a legible relation at the CI interface, minimally for the interpretation of operator variable relations (Chomsky 2004, 2007), and as claimed here, for the interpretation of event structure. The event feature approach to event structure is further developed to derive the properties of achievements. I explore the consequences of combining it with Hale & Keyser’s (1993, 2002) lexical derivational approach to denominal and deadjectival verbs. A surprising prediction results: there are no accomplishments in the lexicon. I test the prediction on idioms. Nunberg et al.’s (1994) idiomatically combining expressions and idiomatic phrases are relevant for testing the prediction. One implication that the lack of accomplishments in the lexicon has for inner aspect is that syntax must be playing a crucial role in the formation of accomplishments. Another consequence has to do with the nature of the lexicon-syntax interface. There may be an “edge” to (complex) lexical items, where only the structurally highest portion is visible to syntactic operations. In this way lexical edges pattern with the edges of phases in narrow syntax. In as much as the results of this lexical derivational approach to achievements are substantiated, it provides support for an operative lexicon (see also Reinhart & Siloni 2005) and fits in with other approaches that assume that lexical processes are guided by the principles of syntax (see Hale & Keyser 1993, 2002; Mateu 2002; among others). At the same time, it poses a problem for (neo-)constructional approaches to inner aspect in which the syntax alone is claimed to be responsible for the aspectual properties of a predicate (Borer 2005; Ritter & Rosen 1998, 2000). The conclusions that are reached about the syntactic nature of inner aspect are that both Transfer to CI and merge play an important role in the aspectual interpretation of a predicate, and that for an element to contribute to aspectual interpretation, it must fall within a particular syntactic space in the verb phrase. Additionally, it is concluded that the object-to-event mapping property itself is a purely syntactic phenomenon. Valencia, Spain June 2008

Jonathan E. MacDonald

List of abbreviations AgrOP object agreement phrase AP adjective phrase AspcP causing aspect phrase AspP aspect phrase AsppP process aspect phrase AsprP result aspect phrase ast-t assertion time bp bare plural CI conceptual-intentional dp determiner phrase em external merge epp extended projection principle event structure es ev-t event time ext external 〈 fe〉 final subevent feature FP functional projection ice idiomatically combing expression 〈ie〉 initial subevent feature im internal merge iness inessive int internal ip idiomatic phrase IP inflection phrase

mn mass noun n. footnote NP noun phrase occ occurrence feature ote object-to-event p preposition perf perfective pf perfective PFV perfective pic phase impenetrability condition PP preposition phrase pv perfective [q] quantity of material RP result phrase SC small clause sie sequence of identical events SPEC specifier sqa specified quantity of A sse sequence of similar events TP tense phrase ut-t utterance time vidms verbs of inherently directed motion VP big verb phrase vP little verb phrase

chapter 1

An introduction to the syntax of inner aspect 1.  A brief introduction to inner aspect Aspect is a term that has been used in linguistics to refer to (at least) two distinct domains of study. We can refer to these two domains respectively as inner and outer aspect (Travis 1991: 7), situation and viewpoint aspect (Smith 1991: 3), or lexical and grammatical aspect. The perfective/imperfective distinction in Romance as well as the progressive/perfect distinction in English are exam­ ples of the latter. The former has also been referred to as Aktionsart (Tenny & Pustejovsky 2000: 6). This book is an exploration of the syntactic nature of inner aspect. I adopt the term inner aspect (vs. outer aspect), as opposed to lexical aspect (vs. grammatical aspect), in order to emphasize the syntactic focus of this study; as we will see, the properties of inner aspect are manifested only inside the verb phrase. This is not the case for outer aspect (see 2 below).1 I take inner aspect to refer to how a predicate describes an event;2 the (sub)event structure of a predicate is the domain of inner aspect. A predicate that describes an event as having an endpoint is a telic predicate; a predicate that describes an event as lacking an end­ point is an atelic predicate.3,4 Here I briefly note some ways in which inner aspect

.  Guéron (2004: 300) discusses the construal of the temporal aspect of an event in Tense Phrase vs. the calculation of spatial aktionsart in the lower vP. Temporal aspect vs. spatial aktionsart correlates essentially to outer aspect and inner aspect respectively. .  Note that throughout the book, I use the term predicate not to refer to the lexical verb alone, but to the entire verb phrase, unless explicitly noted otherwise. .  Tenny (1987: 20) uses the term delimited and non-delimited, which essentially correspond to telic and atelic respectively. Depraetere (1995: 2–3) makes a distinction between (a)telicity and (un) boundedness. I follow Depraetere in assuming that (a)telicity is distinct from (un)boundedness. .  A predicate can also describe an event as possessing a beginning only (i.e., an activity predicate, see chapters two and three), as possessing both a beginning and an end (i.e., an achievement or accomplishment predicate, see chapters two to four), or as possessing neither (i.e., a stative predicate, see chapter five). Moreover, for predicates that describe events with both a beginning and an end, whether or not time elapses between the beginning and end of the event is also im­ portant (i.e., the difference between achievements and accomplishments, see chapter three).



The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

differs from outer aspect. Naturally, more properties of inner aspect will emerge as we progress through the chapters. Inner aspect is a phenomenon of language in which the internal temporal structure, or the subevent structure, of the event plays an important role. Predicates describe events, and the events they describe can be interpreted as having subevent structure. Subevent structure can be understood in terms of endpoints. Consider the sentences in (1). (1) a. Jerome drank a bottle of beer last night. b. Jerome drank beer last night.

The sentence in (1a) describes an event that is interpreted as having (minimally) an endpoint. The endpoint of the event corresponds to the moment when the bottle of beer is finished. When there is no more beer in the bottle, the drinking event ends. Thus, we interpret the event in (1a) to be finished and complete. We refer to a predicate of the type in (1a) as a telic predicate. The sentence in (1b), in con­ trast, describes an event that is not interpreted as necessarily having an endpoint. There is no specific quantity of beer expressed to have been drunk, and therefore no endpoint to the event is understood to have necessarily been reached. We refer to a predicate of the type in (1b) as an atelic predicate. An important property of English inner aspect is that the nature of the internal argument affects the inter­ pretation of the event described by the predicate (Verkuyl 1972: 50; Krifka 1989: 76).5 In (1a) the internal argument denotes a specific quantity of beer and the predicate is telic; in (1b) the internal argument does not denote a specific quantity of beer and the predicate is atelic. Consider now some properties of outer aspect, illustrated by the sentences in (2). (2) a. Jerome was drinking a bottle of beer (when I left the bar). b. Jerome was drinking beer (when I left the bar).

Consider the morphological properties first. The verb is in the progressive form; ing appears on the verb, and the auxiliary be is required. We find no such mor­ phological manifestations in English inner aspect. Consider the interpretation of the sentences in (2). Observe that neither sentence informs us of whether the

.  In languages such as English, Dutch, German, Spanish, Italian there is a mapping from the object to the event. This same mapping does not seem to be present in Malagasy (Travis in prep) or Russian (chapter five). See Borer (2005) and Travis (in prep) for recent discussions of this mapping in the domain of syntax. Bulgarian shows this mapping with respect to a subset of verbs (Slabakova 1997: 692). See also chapter five, section four for a brief discussion of these Bulgarian verbs and their relevance to language variation.



Chapter 1.  An introduction to the syntax of inner aspect

event described has an endpoint or not, irrespective of the nature of the internal argument. English outer aspect has morphological manifestations that inner aspect does not. Outer aspect is not affected by the nature of the internal argument, inner aspect is.6 Although there are shared properties between these two distinct domains (i.e., the nature of the endpoints involved) and although it may be the case that these two phenomena are an expression of the same fundamental prop­ erties operating at different levels of composition (Tenny & Pustejovsky 2000: 6), they are still distinct domains, as has been previously observed (see, for instance, Smith 1991) and as evidenced by the examples above.7 The present study is con­ cerned only with the syntactic nature of inner aspect. Before entering into finer details of the syntactic nature of inner aspect, and since the domain of inner aspect is the (internal temporal/subevent) structure of events, a note on the ontology of the relevant events is in order. The domain of inner aspect is not the structure of real world events. Inner aspect is concerned with the way in which a predicate describes real world events, not the actual struc­ ture of the real world (Rothstein 2004: 2; and references). Consider the sentences in (3). (3) a. Rufus drank beer at the local pub. b. Rufus drank a pitcher of beer at the local pub.

Both of the sentences in (3) can truthfully describe a real world situation in which Rufus went to the local pub and drank an entire pitcher of beer. The sentence in (3a) does not inform us explicitly that the quantity of beer that Rufus drank was an entire pitcher, although it very well could have been. It also could have been a single sip, or two swallows; the mass noun has a vague denotation. The sentence in (3b), on the other hand, informs us explicitly that the quantity of beer that Rufus drank was an entire pitcher. Both of the sentences in (3) can truthfully describe the same real world situation, although they describe it differently. Predicates provide a description of real world events; part of that description may involve an end to the event, or not (and as we will see in chapter three, a beginning or not). Consider the interpretation of (3b) again: Rufus drank an entire pitcher of beer. It is straightforward to conclude that the actual amount of beer does not need to be an entire pitcher, although we interpret it to be from the sentence. For, even if

.  That the internal argument can affect the telicity of the predicate does not seem to be a universal property of inner aspect. See chapter five for a discussion. .  Zagona (2004: 650) states that “inner Aspect bounds an event, outer Aspect bounds a time interval.”





The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

the pitcher were entirely full when poured (which is usually not the case), it would most likely not be full by the time it reached the table, as beer can easily spill out of a full pitcher. Likewise, there always remains some amount of beer in the pitcher when it is “finished”. Nevertheless, sentence (3b) can truthfully be uttered in these circumstances because the predicate provides a description of the real world situa­ tion in which the pitcher is interpreted as full. A predicate only describes a real world event, and part of that description is whether the event is interpreted as having an endpoint or not, as telic or atelic.8

2.  Two independent properties of English inner aspect As noted above, event structure (es) plays a central role in any discussion of inner aspect. Moreover, as we saw from the sentences in (1) above, the nature of the internal argument also plays an important role in English inner aspect. I refer to the effect that the internal object has on the aspectual interpretation of the event described by the predicate as the object-to-event mapping (the ote mapping). In this section, I argue that es and the ote mapping property are two independent properties of English inner aspect. Consider the ote mapping again in (4). (4) a. John drank a beer b. John drank beer

#for ten minutes/ in ten minutes. for ten minutes/#in ten minutes.

The predicate in (4a) is an accomplishment. I refer to it as a standard accomplishment. Note again that the nature of the internal argument affects the interpretation of the event described by the predicate. In (4a) a beer describes a specific quantity of material and the predicate is telic. I refer to an np of this type as a [+q]np (q for quantity of X (Verkuyl 1972: 64)).9 The telic interpretation of (4a) is evi­ denced by the incompatibility of the durative phrase10 (e.g., for ten minutes) and

.  Inner aspect provides support for a lack of language-world isomorphism. See Ludlow (2003) for a discussion of language-world isomorphism. .  There is some debate about the exact nature of the property of an argument that can enter into the ote mapping. See Borer (2005), Hay, Kennedy, & Levin (1999), Krifka (1989), Rothstein (2004), and Verkuyl (1972) for some discussion. It is not my intention to explicitly enter into this debate, although I do adopt Verkuyl’s (1972) terminology, as it is quite intuitive. Also note that in chapter two, section 2.1.1, I argue that the relevant property is closer to np than to dp. Therefore, I refer to [±q]nps, not [±q]DPs. .  In chapter two, section 1, I provide a thorough discussion of the compatibility patterns of the durative phrase. The durative phrase’s incompatibility with telic predicates and its compatibility with atelic predicates is a slight oversimplification of the facts, although it suffices for the discussion here.



Chapter 1.  An introduction to the syntax of inner aspect

by the compatibility of the time span adverbial (e.g., in ten minutes). The time span adverbial expresses the amount of time that passes before the end of the event.11 In contrast, the mass noun (mn) beer in (4b) does not express a specific quantity of material (i.e., it is a [–q]np) and the predicate is atelic.12 This is evidenced by the compatibility of the durative phrase and the incompatibility of the time span adverbial. Now consider the transitive activity predicates in (5). (5) a. John carried a goat b. John carried livestock

for ten minutes/#in ten minutes. for ten minutes/#in ten minutes.

Note that we find a different pattern from the standard accomplishments from (4). The nature of the internal argument does not affect the interpretation of the event described by the predicate. That is, transitive activities do not show the ote mapping property. In (5a), a goat is a [+q]np, and in (5b), livestock is a [–q]np; yet, in both cases the predicates are atelic. Observe, however, a different pattern when goal PPs are added to these sentences, illustrated in (6). (6) a. John carried a goat into the barn b. John carried livestock into the barn

#for ten minutes/in ten minutes. for ten minutes/#in ten minutes.

The result of the addition of a goal pp is that these sentences now behave exactly like the standard accomplishments from (4). I refer to this type of predicate as a pp-accomplishment (i.e., an accomplishment formed by the addition of a pp). Note that the nature of the internal argument now affects the telicity of the predi­ cate. In (6a), a goat is a [+q]np, and the predicate is telic; in (6b), livestock is a [–q] np, and the predicate is atelic. The patterns in (5) and (6) are telling. With the transitive activity in (5), a [+q]np alone is not enough to turn the predicate telic. As seen in (6), a goal pp is required. This indicates that the [q] property of the np entering into the ote mapping cannot be the same property introduced by the goal pp; otherwise, the goal pp would not have any effect on the aspectual interpretation of the predicate. To put it another way, if they were the same property, we would expect that the [q] feature of the np would have an effect on the aspectual interpretation of the predicate; it would turn it into a telic predicate like the goal pp can. Since the np .  The time span adverbial can also express the amount of time that passes before the begin­ ning of the event (Dowty 1979: 57; Tenny 1994: 6). I ignore this interpretation here for ease of exposition, and because it does not affect the conclusions reached. .  Note that since the [–q]np makes the predicate in (4b) atelic, technically, it is no longer an accomplishment, it is an activity. Nevertheless, in this discussion I refer to both sentences in (4) as accomplishments for ease of exposition.





The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

and the goal pp show distinct aspectual effects, the goal pp cannot be introducing a [q] feature. It must introduce some other property to turn the predicate telic. I take this property to be directly related to the es of a predicate. This is a natural assumption since the goal pp alters the es properties of a predicate; i.e., it turns an activity into an accomplishment. Moreover, since the [q] feature is directly in­ volved in the ote mapping, the property introduced by the goal pp cannot be, given the patterns in (5) and (6). Furthermore, note that even in the presence of the es altering property of the goal pp, the [q] feature of the internal argument np overrules it, as seen by the atelic interpretation of (6b). If the [q] feature of the np and the property of the goal pp were the same property, we would not expect this asymmetry in their aspectual effect.13 The conclusion to draw here is that there are two distinct prop­ erties at work, one directly involved in the ote mapping, and one directly involved in the es of the predicate. A contrast between accomplishments and another type of telic predicate, achievements, provides further support that the properties directly involved in the es of a predicate are distinct from the properties directly involved in the ote mapping. Examples of achievements are provided in (7). (7) a. John caught a bear b. John had a sandwich

#for ten minutes. #for ten minutes.

The durative phrase is incompatible with achievements, because they are telic.14 Although achievements and accomplishments are both telic predicates, they differ in es. Accomplishments are extended in time, and achievements are punctual in time. This comes out when they appear in the stop-control construction, as in (8). (8) a. John stopped drinking the bottle of beer. b. John stopped catching the bear.

There is a single event interpretation of the accomplishment in (8a) that is not present with the achievement in (8b). That is, there is an interpretation of (8a) in

.  The only other mention of this asymmetry that I have encountered is by an anonymous reviewer of Thompson (2006) in footnote 11. The reviewer provides the following example: John pushed carts to the store. Note that a bare plural is used here instead of a mn. We will see in chapter two, section 2 that the aspectual contribution of bare plurals and mns are distinct. Nevertheless, the observation is still valid. .  Note that there is an interpretation of the durative in (7a) in which the amount of time the bear was in a state of being caught is expressed. This interpretation is not relevant to a discussion of inner aspect, as there is no systematic relation between the presence of a final state and an (a)telic interpretation of a predicate (Ramchand 2003: 19).



Chapter 1.  An introduction to the syntax of inner aspect

which the event started, continued for some amount of time but stopped before reaching the end, before the bottle of beer was finished. In (8b) there is no such interpretation; there is only an iterative interpretation in which John stopped repeatedly catching the bear.15 These differences can be explained by the distinct es properties of accomplishments and achievements. An accomplishment describes an event as extended in time; that is, time elapses between the beginning and end of the event described by an accomplishment. Because time elapses, the event can be stopped before the end is reached. In contrast, an achievement describes an event as punctual in time; that is, no time elapses between the beginning and end of the event described by an achievement. Because time does not elapse, once the event begins, it ends; con­ sequently, once it begins, it cannot be stopped before it ends. Accomplishments and achievements have different es properties. Although this is the case, they both show the ote mapping property. We have already observed the ote mapping with accom­ plishments in (4) and (6) above, now observe it with achievements in (9). (9) a. John caught wildlife b. John had meat

for an hour. for an hour.

The internal arguments wildlife and meat in (9a) and (9b) respectively are [–q] nps. The result is that these predicates are atelic, as evidence by the compatibility of the durative phrase. Achievements and accomplishments both show the ote mapping property and yet they have distinct es properties. If the ote mapping property of English inner aspect were inherently tied to the es properties of the predicate, we would not necessarily expect that predicates with different es prop­ erties would show the ote mapping property. This is not unexpected, however, if these two sets of properties are independent from each other. Considering this range of facts, I conclude that es and the ote mapping prop­ erty are independent and distinct (yet interacting) properties of English inner aspect. Given that they are distinct properties, a natural account of English inner aspect would employ two distinct (yet interacting) mechanisms. 3.  Previous syntactic accounts of inner aspect In this section I review a series of previous syntactic accounts of inner aspect. In no way is this an attempt to review all previous syntactic accounts of inner aspect, nor all details of those accounts reviewed. I have chosen those that seem representative .  Dowty (1979: 59) notes that “unlike both accomplishments and activities, achievements are unacceptable as complements of stop (except in a habitual reading).” As noted in the discussion of (8b), there is a non-habitual iterative interpretation of achievements available as well.





The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

of the variety of distinct syntactic accounts that are currently found in the literature, and I focus the review around the three observations of English inner aspect made in the previous section. The first of these observations is that there is a legitimate lin­ guistic difference between achievements and accomplishments. I consider whether or not these proposals can account for their differences. The second observation is that English inner aspect exhibits the ote mapping property. All but two of the accounts reviewed below have an explicit proposal on how to account for the ote mapping property. In effect, this is the main focus of the majority of syntactic ac­ counts. The third observation is that there are two independent and distinct proper­ ties involved in English inner aspect: the ote mapping property and es. Where the previous systems do not explicitly attempt to account for these properties as distinct, I discuss whether or not their proposed mechanisms can be extended to do so. I divide the discussion into two sections based on whether or not an ex­ plicit account of both achievements and accomplishments is supplied. In the first section, 3.1, I discuss those approaches that do not offer an explicit account. This discussion is divided into three subsections based on the number of functional projections employed: 2, 1, or 0. In section 3.2, I address accounts that specifi­ cally discuss the syntax of achievements and accomplishments, and I discuss the difficulties they have in handling the it takes x-time construction interpretation facts. Moreover, throughout both sections, I note whether or not the independence of es and the ote mapping is represented. I do this by examining how the ote mapping property is accounted for, and I compare it to how goal PPs turn atelic predicates into telic predicates. If the same mechanisms are involved, then the account does not represent these two independent properties as independent properties. 3.1  No explicit account of achievements vs. accomplishments We saw in section 2 that the stop-control construction provides evidence that a legitimate linguistic difference exists between accomplishments and achieve­ ments. Nevertheless, not every researcher on inner aspect accepts them as lin­ guistically distinct aspectual predicate types, although Dowty (1979), Mittwoch (1991), Rothstein (2004), Travis (in prep), and Vendler (1967), among others, do. I take a moment here to draw attention to one more difference between achieve­ ments and accomplishments. One construction that provides evidence for a difference between accomplish­ ments and achievements is the it takes x-time construction. With accomplishments it elicits two interpretations, as illustrated in (10), while with achievements it elicits only one interpretation, as illustrated in (11) (Dowty 1979: 56–57).16 .  As Dowty (1979: 56) observes the it takes x-time construction elicits the same interpretations as the time span adverbial.



Chapter 1.  An introduction to the syntax of inner aspect

(10) a. It took Phil ten minutes to drink the pitcher of beer. b. It took Sal ten minutes to eat the slice of pizza. (11) a. It took John ten minutes to catch the raccoon. b. It took Bill ten minutes to spot the plane.

Consider the two interpretations elicited with accomplishments. The it takes x-time construction can express the amount of time that passes before the event begins; I refer to this as the start-time interpretation. It can also express the amount of time that passes before the event ends; I refer to this as the end-time interpretation. The start-time interpretation of (10a) is that ten minutes passed before Phil began to drink the pitcher of beer, and the start-time interpretation of (10b) is that ten minutes passed before Sal began to eat the slice of pizza. The end-time interpre­ tation of (10a) is that ten minutes passed before the pitcher of beer was entirely drunk, and the end-time interpretation of (10b) is that ten minutes passed before the slice of pizza was entirely eaten. With achievements, there is only a start-time interpretation. Recall that the events that achievements describe begin and end at the same time. Thus for the it takes x-time construction with achievements the start-time interpretation ex­ presses the amount of time that passes before the event takes place, since the be­ ginning and end take place at the same time.17 This interpretation in (11a) is that ten minutes passed before the catching of the raccoon event took place, and in (11b), that ten minutes passed before the spotting of the plane event took place. There is no end-time interpretation available for achievements. The remainder of this section is organized into the following subsections. In 3.1.1, I look at approaches to the syntax of aspect which employ two functional projections, and in 3.1.2 at those that employ a single functional projection. We will see that with respect to the question of accounting for achievements vs. ac­ complishments, the multiple functional projection approaches can be reduced to a single projection approach, because ultimately there is only one projection in­ volved in the determination of the (a)telicity of the predicate. Once reduced to a single projection, it becomes less clear how these accounts can handle the lin­ guistic differences between achievements and accomplishments. In 3.1.3, I look at an alternative account that does not employ any functional projection. It too has difficulty accounting for achievements vs. accomplishments.

.  One might ask how we know that the it takes x-time construction with achievements ex­ presses a start-time interpretation and not an end-time interpretation if the beginning and the end of the event take place at the same time. The answer will have to wait until chapter three, section 1.1 and chapter five, section 3.2 where I discuss the interpretations of almost and the properties of Russian lexically prefixed perfective verbs respectively. For now note that whereas accomplishments have two readings with it takes x-time, achievements have only one.



 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

3.1.1  Double functional projection approaches In double functional projection approaches, two functional projections are implicated in the es of a predicate. Ritter & Rosen (1998, 2000), and Borer (1994, 1998) exemplify this type of approach.18 One projection is responsible for the delimitation or telicity of the event described by the predicate and the other is responsible for the initiation or origination of the event. The projection responsible for initiation typically merges above vP. The projection responsible for delimitation is above vP in Borer (1994, 1998).19 In Ritter & Rosen (1998, 2000), it is sometimes between vP and vp, and sometimes it is introduced as an extended projection of a secondary predicate. When the delimitation phrase projects, a dp must move through its specifier. The dp that does this receives the role of delimiter or event measure. That is, this is the dp that participates in the ote mapping. The movement of a dp through the specifier of the initiation phrase results in the interpretation of that dp as the initiator or causer of the event expressed by the predicate. I only discuss Ritter & Rosen’s (1998) account in detail. The structure proposed by Ritter & Rosen (1998) for the accomplishment in (12a) is given in (12b).20

.  Note that Sanz (1999, 2000) has a syntactic approach to the syntax of inner aspect that employs two functional projections, although in a fundamentally different way from Ritter & Rosen (1998, 2000), and Borer (1994, 1998). Sanz claims that there is an Aktionsart phrase with a [±Telic] feature responsible for the telicity of the predicate and a Transitive phrase with a [±measure] feature responsible for the measuring out by an argument a la Tenny (1987). Given that there are two types of features, one corresponding to (a)telicity (and arguably es) and one corresponding to measuring out (and potentially the ote mapping), this system may be able to capture the independence of es and the ote mapping property. Nevertheless, I do not discuss this proposal in detail, for as Sanz (2000: 14–15) herself observes “it does not account for transi­ tive atelic events.” .  This is not exactly precise, as Borer’s aspectual account is embedded within a theory in which the argument structure of a verb is not lexically specified, and arguments associ­ ated with a verb are in no hierarchical configuration; that is, there is no distinction between internal and external arguments. Each argument enters the syntax and moves to functional projections outside vp. Given that they move outside the verb phrase altogether, within a more Chomskian (2000, 2001, 2004) approach in which the external argument merges in Spec, vP and moves to a position above it, it does not seem unreasonable to associate Borer’s vp with little vP. .  The structure in (12) is adopted from Ritter & Rosen (1998: 159) with some minor addi­ tions for clarity.



Chapter 1.  An introduction to the syntax of inner aspect

(12) a.

b.

John built a house. FP(-initiation)

Spec

F′ F

VP V′

DP John

V

FP-delimitation Spec

F′ F

VP V build

DP a house

The dp a house (i.e., a [+q]np) originates as the complement of V and raises to Spec, FP-delimitation and becomes associated with the delimitation of the event; it is as­ signed the role of delimiter. That is, it measures out the event. John originates in Spec, vp and raises to Spec, FP-initiation and becomes associated with the initiation of the event. Ritter & Rosen do not explicitly illustrate a structure for a sentence like John built stereo equipment, which, due to the [–q]np behaves like an activity. They do, however, provide the structure in (13b) for a transitive activity like the one in (13a).21 (13)

a. b.

John drove the car. FP-topic

Spec

F′ F

VP agent





V′ V drive

YP

.  Structure in (13b) is taken from Ritter & Rosen (1998: 160).



 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

Ritter & Rosen note that since there is no FP-delimitation phrase, these transitive activities have no es (and in this way they are like stative predicates for them). I take the liberty to assume that the structure in (13b) would be the structure cor­ responding to a sentence like John built stereo equipment. If this is correct, then there is no FP-delimitation here, and no Spec, FP-delimitation for the dp to pass through; therefore this dp does not receives a delimiter role. In this case, strictly speaking, there is no ote mapping since the [–q]np plays no role in determining the es. The only way in which a dp plays a role in es (setting aside the effects of FP-initiation) is by passing through the Specifier of FP-delimitation when it projects. This is the ote mapping in Ritter & Rosen (1998). Ritter & Rosen assume that unaccusatives such as break, melt, burn, sink, open, close, and grow have the structure in (12b). We have just seen that (12b) is the structure for an accomplishment. Nevertheless, unaccusatives are typically taken to be achievements. Ritter & Rosen assume that achievements and accom­ plishments have the same aspectual structure and refer to both of them as result verbs. It is not immediately clear that a single structure for both aspectual classes can account for the differences in interpretations between accomplishments and achievements. Consider how the interpretation of accomplishments with the it takes x-time construction might be accounted for with their structure. We might propose that modification of FP-initiation gives rise to a start-time interpretation and that modification of FP-delimitation gives rise to an end-time interpretation. Although this seems like a natural account, it is not clear that it can work. First, compare the interpretations of the pp-accomplishment in (14a) with the transitive activity in (14b) in the it takes x-time construction. (14) a. It took John an hour to drive the car into the city. b. It took John an hour to drive the car.

There is an FP-delimitation present in the structure underlying the sentence in (14a), and as such the FP-initiation is interpreted as initiation. Both the start-time interpretation and the end-time interpretation are present. In (14b) however, there is no FP-delimitation (recall the structure from (13b)), and therefore there is no FPinitiation. If the start-time interpretation is a result of modifying the FP-initiation phrase, there should be no start-time interpretation in (14b). Nevertheless, there is a start-time interpretation. Consequently, the start-time interpretation cannot result from modification of FP-initiation. Therefore, we are only left with FP-delimitation to capture the ambiguity of accomplishments and the lack of ambiguity with achievements in the it takes x-time construction, and it is not immediately clear how this should be carried out in the presence of a single functional projection. Finally, let us consider whether or not es can be represented independently from the ote mapping by considering the contribution of goal (i.e., delimiting)



Chapter 1.  An introduction to the syntax of inner aspect 

PPs and comparing it to the delimiting role of internal argument DPs. Ritter & Rosen (1998: 155) provide the structure in (15b) as an illustration of the way an intransitive manner of motion predicate like walk, or swim, can be delimited. (15)

a. b.

John walked the letter to the dean’s office. FP(-initiation)

Spec

F′ F

VP V′

XP V

FP-delimitation Spec

F′ F





SC YP

pred

The letter would be introduced where YP is in the tree structure and consequently move to Spec, FP-delimitation and receive the role of delimiter, much in the same way that we saw with the standard accomplishment in (12b) above. Now, in order to delimit the transitive activity from (13) (e.g., John drove the car into the garage.), Ritter & Rosen would presumably have to add a delimiting SC with the goal pp filling the position of pred in (15b). The direct object (the car) would have to raise from YP from within the SC to Spec, FP-delimitation, just like the letter (in 15b), and receive the delimiter role. If this reasoning is correct, then es and the ote mapping are fused into the single mechanism of dp movement into Spec, FPdelimitation.22 They are not represented as independent properties.

.  A similar situation occurs in Borer (1994). She proposes that an event measure phrase dom­ inating vp assigns a measuring out role to the np that moves through its specifier; the Spec-head relation gives rise to the event measure role. The event measure phrase must also project in the presence of a delimiting pp. Moreover, an np must move through it, thereby receiving the role of event measure. The ote mapping properties and es both boil down to a Spec-head relation in the same functional projection. They are not represented as independent properties.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

3.1.2  Single functional projection approaches In single functional projection approaches to inner aspect, there is a single func­ tional projection that plays a role in the aspectual calculation of the predicate. Borer (2005), and Ramchand (1993) exemplify this approach, although each employ the aspectual functional projection in technically distinct ways.23 Ramchand (1993) proposes a structure like the one in (16), based on overt morphological and word order evidence from Scottish Gaelic. IP

(16) I′ I

SPEC AspP

SPEC (–internal)

Asp′

Asp SPEC (+internal) (Patient)





VP V′ V

XP (+internal) (non-Patient)

Essentially, an argument governed by Asp, in Spec, vp is what she calls a Patient, or a completely affect argument. An argument governed by V is a non-Patient. The patient interpretation of an argument results when there is perfective morphology present (i.e., the particle air, a reflex of a [+perf] specification), or the verb is in simple past (raising through Asp and carrying the [+perf] specification with it), .  Two other single functional projection approaches are van Hout (2000, 2004) and Travis (1991, 2000). Van Hout assumes that a quantized object is attracted to Spec, AgrOP to check a telicity feature. She notes that her approach supports Borer’s (1994) approach to one-argument verbs; “in fact, it is almost a notational variant.” (van Hout 2004: 81). Travis (1991) argues for a syntactic position between vp shells based on derived objects from Kalagan and reduplication facts from Tagalog. She claims that this position is associated with the aspectual interpretation of the predicate and argues for the presence of an aspectual projection there: AspP. Ultimately, I argue that there is an aspectual projection between vP and vp as well; however, I differ from Travis in the role that this aspectual projection plays. In fact, Travis (1991) is not explicit about how the aspectual head she proposes actually determines the aspectual character of the predicate. In Travis (2000), the aspectual head between vP and vp is retained. She adds another aspectual projection above vP calling it an event phrase. Both projections are involved in the determination of the aspectual character of the predicate, AspP at an l-syntax level and EP at an s-syntax level; however, again, the exact way in which these projections determine the aspectual character of a predicate is not entirely clear.



Chapter 1.  An introduction to the syntax of inner aspect 

and the predicate is telic. The non-patient interpretation of an argument results when there is imperfective morphology present (i.e., the particle ag, a reflex of a [–perf] specification) and the predicate is atelic.24 Ramchand shows that there is a difference between the positions of arguments that are interpreted as patients and non-patients in Scottish Gaelic. With respect to accounting for the differences between accomplishments and achievements, Ramchand does not explicitly provide a technical solution, although she does note that there can be both achievement and accomplishment interpreta­ tions when the verb is in the simple past. It is not immediately obvious how relying on affected arguments can account for the relevant differences between accom­ plishments and achievements. In Scottish Gaelic there seems to be no ote mapping: “the past tense produces a telic reading regardless of structure of the np object it appears with” (Ramchand 1993: 418). Consequently, the system does inherently separate the ote mapping from es because there is no attempt to capture the ote mapping properties. Thus, some extra mechanism(s) would be needed if this apparatus were to be imple­ mented to account for the properties of English inner aspect. Borer (2005) proposes the structure in (17b) corresponding to a telic interpre­ tation of the sentence in (17a).25 (17)

a. b.

John built a house. ...TP AspP

T Spec

Asp′ Asp





VP V, DP, DP

.  Ramchand (1993: 423), referring to the Patient and non-Patient roles in footnote 3 notes: “This use of θ-role labels is shorthand for a classification I would want to make more semanti­ cally precise, and does not necessarily conform to traditional treatments of θ-roles in the litera­ ture. Briefly, I see this distinction in terms of the Verkuyl (1992) partition of nps into [+SQA] (specified quantity of A) and [–SQA].” .  I am simplifying the structure and Borer’s (2005) assumptions regarding the interpretation of this structure. Borer’s account of quantity and non–quantity (roughly telic and atelic) inter­ pretations is embedded within a larger theory of argument projection that goes well beyond the scope of the discussion of the syntax of inner aspect. I focus here on the syntactically relevant portions of her account alone and simplify the structure accordingly.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

The dp arguments in (17b) are unstructured. They get there interpretation by evacuating the vp and moving into the specifier of functional projections. In order for the structure not to crash and so that a telic interpretation results, a dp with a particular property α (α for Borer is quantity,26 α for Krifka (1989) is quantizedness, α for Verkuyl (1972) is specified quantity of X) must move into Spec, AspP and assign range to Asp. If no range is assigned to Asp, the derivation crashes. Thus, sentences as in (18) cannot have the structure in (17b), because the internal argu­ ments do not possess property α. (18) a. John built houses. b. John drank beer.

For the sentences in (18), Borer proposes the structure in (19) in which, instead of AspP being present, another functional projection is present. ...TP

(19)

FP

T Spec

F′ F





VP V

This FP in (19) assigns partitive case to the dp that moves into its specifier, and this dp receives a generic participant role in the event. Since AspP is not present, atelicity results. This captures the ote mapping in Borer’s (2005) system. Borer (2005) addresses the question of the linguistic legitimacy of achieve­ ments as a separate class of aspectual predicate types from accomplishments. She makes two general conclusions: 1. Achievements and accomplishments do not differ with respect to es. Both achievements and accomplishments have the struc­ ture in (17b), projecting AspP; and 2. The only difference between achievements and accomplishments is that the telicity of achievements does not depend on the nature of the internal argument, while it does for accomplishments (Borer 2005: 333).

.  For Borer (2005) when a dp has the property α (i.e., quantity) there are corresponding structural consequences within the dp itself. I ignore these structural differences as it is not crucial to the present discussion.



Chapter 1.  An introduction to the syntax of inner aspect 

She assumes that achievements enter the syntax with range lexically assigned, and therefore no dp need move to Spec, AspP to assign range. Her conclusion that the direct object with an achievement does not play a role in determining the aspect of the predicate is based on data of the following type. (20) a. John spotted a plane/water b. John found a nugget of gold/gold

#for an hour. #for an hour.

Irrespective of whether the direct object is a [±q]np, these predicates are in­ terpreted as telic. Thus, these data seem to indicate that the internal argument does not play a role in determining the aspectual interpretation of achievements. However, it is not clear that we can take these data to support this conclusion. First, note that the subject in these predicates is not interpreted as an agent; it is an experiencer. This indicates that perhaps these subjects are derived from a position internal to the verb phrase. If this is the case, potentially the subject is the argument that enters into the ote mapping, ultimately affecting the aspectual interpretation of the predicate. In fact, this is what I argue in chapter seven, section 3. I refer the reader to that section for a full discussion of the properties of this type of achievement that I refer to as psych-achievements. Second, recall from the data in (9) above that the internal arguments of achievements do affect the aspectual interpretation of the predicate. Consequently, her conclusion that the direct object with an achievement does not play a role in determining the aspect of the predicate is not entirely motivated. Since accomplishments and achievements for Borer (2005) have the same structure, again we are left with a single functional projection that must be able to account for the distinct interpretations elicited in the it takes x-time construction. Again it is not immediately clear how this would work. Finally, consider whether es and the ote mapping property are represented as independent properties. Borer (2005) considers the effect of a goal pp on the aspectual interpretation of intransitive activities by considering data as in (21). (21) a. Bill ran to the store. b. John swam into the room. c. Pat danced into the corridor.

There is no overt internal argument with these intransitive activities, and when there is no goal pp, they are atelic. When the goal pp is added, these predicates become telic. From this Borer (2005: 208) concludes that the goal pp is able to assign range to Asp. Since the goal pp is able to assign range to Asp, no dp needs to move Spec, AspP to assign range. Here the goal pp technically plays the same aspectual role as the dp from (17); they both assign range to Asp. Consequently, es and the ote mapping property are not represented as independent properties.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

3.1.3  A non-functional projection approach27 Harley (2005) exemplifies a non-functional projection approach to the syntax of inner aspect.28 Harley focuses her discussion of inner aspect on denominal and de­ adjectival verbs. She assumes an account of them based on Hale & Keyser (1993) in which a noun root in object position incorporates into the “light” verb that selects it. Thus, for a sentence as in (22a) the l-syntactic structure would be as in (22b).29 (22)

a. b.

The mare foaled. ...vP DP

The mare v





v′ √P √ foal

Crucially, Harley claims that what regulates the aspectual interpretation of the predicate as telic or atelic is the inherent boundedness or unboundedness of the root that incorporates. Since the root foal is inherently bounded, the resulting verb form is telic. Thus, the durative phrase is incompatible with the verbal form and the time span adverbial can target the end of the event, as illustrated in (23). (23) The mare foaled    in 2 hours/#for 2 hours.

On the other hand, the mass noun root drool is inherently unbounded, and there­ fore the resulting verb form is atelic. Consequently, the durative phrase is compat­ ible and the time span adverbial cannot express when the event ends, as illustrated in (24). (24) The baby drooled    for 2 hours/#in 2 hours.

The root that is sister to v determines the telicity of the predicate. If the root is inherently bounded, the predicate is telic. If the root is inherently unbounded,

.  Another non-functional projection account of the aspectual properties of a predicate can be found in Erteschik-Shir & Rapoport (2004). It is not clear how the ote mapping prop­ erty of English is represented in their system. Additionally, they assume a different range of aspectual predicate types from the Vendler (1967) types. I do not discuss the details of their account here. .  Properly speaking, this is an l-syntactic approach to inner aspect. .  Examples in (22) to (24) taken from Harley (2005: 47).



Chapter 1.  An introduction to the syntax of inner aspect 

the predicate is atelic. This essentially captures the ote mapping property in Harley’s system. Let us first consider whether es and the ote mapping property are represented as independent properties. Consider the way in which a goal pp can affect aspec­ tual interpretation in this system. Relevant here is Harley’s (2005) discussion of denominal location and locatum verbs in (25a) and (25b) respectively. (25) a. Sue boxed the computer. b. Susan watered the garden.

Following Hale & Keyser (1993), she proposes that these verbs have the structure in (26). ...vP

(26)

v′

DP Sue Susan

v

SC PP

DP the computer the garden

P

√P √





box water

The nominal root box/water incorporates into the abstract (relational) P and then into the light v. Like the verbs in (23) and (24) in which the incorporating noun affects the telicity of the predicate, the incorporating noun can here as well, as illustrated in (27). (27) a. Sue boxed the computer b. Susan watered the garden

#for 5 minutes. for an hour.

The noun box is inherently bounded and the predicate is telic, while the noun water is inherently unbounded and the predicate is atelic, as evidenced by the du­ rative phrase. Harley states that it is the SC itself, as the sister to v that mediates the ote mapping, and that the dp in the inner subject position of the SC can affect the telicity of the predicate, but only indirectly via the SC. She provides the data below in (28).

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

(28) Sue boxed computers

for 5 minutes.

The effect of the direct object on the aspectual interpretation of the predicate is not direct in these cases. It contributes to the interpretation of the SC and it is the SC that determines whether or not the predicate is telic. Harley assumes the same basic structure in (26) for a sentence corresponding to a pp-accomplishment, as John pushed a cart to New York.30 The dp a cart is in the Inner Subject position of the SC, and New York is the complement of the preposition. She does not explicitly discuss how the preposition here contributes to the telicity. However, given her system there are two natural ways. The first is that the preposition is able to incorporate and its inherit boundedness contributes to the telicity. The second is that it does so indirectly via the SC. In the first case, the preposition would be behaving like the bounded nouns in (23) and (24) above, and in the second case like the DPs in the Inner Subject position of the SC in (26). In either case, it seems that the mechanism by which the goal pp contributes to the telicity of the predicate is the same for incorporating roots: being (un)bounded and being sister to v. That is, the property of a goal P is the same as an np (in this case a root) entering into the ote mapping. es and the ote mapping seem not to be represented as independent properties here. Let us consider accomplishments and achievements in this system. Harley (2005) does not specifically consider the aspectual class of achievements. However she does offer an account of semelfactives, which are instantaneous events (Harley 2005: 52; Smith 1991: 29). She claims that the source of the punctual nature of the events described by these predicates is a bounded Event-naming root. Thus, for the semelfactive in (29a), she provides the structure in (29b). (29)

a. b.

Sue hopped ...vP v′

DP Sue





v

√P √ hop

.  Harley also discusses a manner component here as well, but it is not immediately relevant to the present discussion.



Chapter 1.  An introduction to the syntax of inner aspect 

In (29b) hop denotes a bounded event. Given that the punctual nature of the predi­ cate is derived via a bounded Event root it seems possible to extend the analysis to achievement predicates like those in (30). (30) a. John shelved the book b. The sheriff jailed the thief

for an hour. for a week.

Note that only an iterative interpretation is elicited by the durative phrase, indi­ cating that the predicate is telic. Furthermore, no single event interpretation is available in the stop-control construction in (31), only an iterative interpretation, suggesting that these predicates are indeed achievements.31 (31) a. John stopped shelving the book. b. The sheriff stopped jailing the thief.

The verbs heading these predicates fall within the class of location/locatum verbs that Harley accounts for with the structures in (26). However, given that the root that incorporates in the proposed structure for these predicates is not an Eventnaming root, it is not immediately obvious how the punctual nature of achieve­ ments can be derived in this system. 3.2  Explicit accounts of achievements vs. accomplishments In this section, I discuss three syntactic proposals of inner aspect that provide explicit accounts of achievements vs. accomplishments: Megerdoomian (2001), Ramchand (2003), and Travis (in prep). 3.2.1  Megerdoomian 2001 Megerdoomian (2001) relies on a structure of the type in (32) to account for Persian complex predicates. (32)

vP v′

NPext VP NPint

V′ 〈root〉





v2 CAUSE

v1 BECOME

.  I discuss the aspectual properties of these predicates in more detail in chapter four.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

Megerdoomian assumes that little v (i.e., v2) is a functional head that denotes the event cause  and the lower functional head (v1) represents the change of state event. She assumes that a predicate like the one in (33) below is interpreted as an achievement because of the presence of the become  event introduced by v1. (33) The snowman melted.32

The presence of become elicits an achievement interpretation of the predicate. Moreover, she assumes that the external argument introduced in a predicate like (34), the causative alternate of the inchoative form of (33), is introduced in the specifier headed by v2, which itself introduces the cause event. (34) The sun melted the snowman.

Megerdoomian claims that the presence of both the cause event and the become event gives rise to the accomplishment interpretation of the predicate. That is, adding cause to a predicate already containing become derives an ac­ complishment. Recall that there are two interpretations of accomplishments in the it takes x-time construction: a start-time and an end-time interpretation. Observe that only a start-time interpretation is elicited regardless of whether the verb is in the inchoative form, as in (35a), or the causative, as in (35b). (35) a. It took the snowman ten minutes to melt. b. It took the sun ten minutes to melt the snowman.

These facts strongly suggest that if, in fact, the correct analysis of achievement predicates is the presence of a become predicate, accomplishments are not formed merely by the addition of an external argument causer.33 Megerdoomian does not explicitly address the question of the ote map­ ping. Thus, her analysis necessarily keeps es independent of the ote mapping, which entails that more mechanisms would be needed to account for English inner aspect.

.  The original example from Megerdoomian (2001: 110) is in Persian. .  Hay, Kennedy & Levin (1999) provide evidence that cause does not contribute to aspec­ tual interpretation. See chapter three, section 3 for a discussion.



Chapter 1.  An introduction to the syntax of inner aspect 

3.2.2  Ramchand 2003 Ramchand (2003) proposes the maximal structure in (36) to account for argument projection as well as inner aspect.34 The interpretation of (36) is given in (37).35 (36)

vP(= AspcP, causing projection) NP3 subj of “cause” v

v′ VP(= AsppP, process projection)

NP2 subj of “process” V

V′ RP(= AsprP, result projection)

NP1 subj of “result” R





R′ XP ...

(37) a. vP introduces the causation event and licenses different types of external argument (‘subject’ of cause) b. vp specifies the nature of the change or process and licenses the entity undergoing change or process (‘subject’ of process) c. RP gives the ‘telos’ or ‘result state’ of the event and licenses the entity that comes to hold the result state (‘subject’ of result).

A dp that moves into the specifier of any of the functional projections in (36) receives the event role associated with the semantic content introduced by the head of that projection. Consider the sentence in (38). .  The discussion here focuses on Ramchand (2003), although the arguments extend to Folli (2000) and Folli & Ramchand (2001) as well, for the same basic structure of Ramchand (2003) is found there. Note also that Ramchand (1998) is a precursor to Ramchand (2003). In Ramchand (1998), there are three syntactically relevant positions corresponding to distinct aspectual roles: an external aspectual role mapping to the subject and denoting the initiator; an internal aspec­ tual role mapping to the complement of the verb and denoting the “affected” argument; and a non-aspectual role mapping to the complement of a preposition in ditransitive structures and playing no aspectual role. .  The structure in (36) and the statements in (37) are taken from Ramchand (2003: 18–19).

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

(38) John broke the vase.

The verb merges as the head of R and raises through V to v. The dp the vase passes through Spec, RP and ends up in Spec, vp. Thus, the vase denotes the object of result and the object of process. Being the object of process, the vase undergoes the action expressed by the verb. Being the object of result, the vase is interpreted as the holder of the final state, the final state being the state of being broken. The dp John passes through Spec, vP and is interpreted as the causer or initiator of the event. Different predicate types are derived from the presence of different functional projections in the predicate, although the order between the functional predicates is maintained. Thus, for a sentence like (39), the inchoative version of the causative from (38), only vp and RP are present, the vp introducing causation is not. (39) The vase broke.

For a transitive activity like (40), only the vP and vp projections are present, while RP is not. (40) John pushed the car.

Ramchand (2003: 19) notes that “the V head, or process portion of the event is the nucleus of the dynamic verbal event syntax and is the only obligatory portion; initiation projections … and result projections … being optional in the general case.” Given this, it must be the case that the locus for variation between an achieve­ ment interpretation and an accomplishment interpretation is the V head. Indeed Ramchand (2003: 19) notes that the “vp is the heart of every dynamic predicate, since it represents change through time, and it is present in every dynamic verb. The process in question can be extended, i.e., consisting of an indefinite number of transitions, or may be a single minimal transition such as that found with “achievement” verbs.” Thus, the V head can be specified as extended or non-extended. In the first instance there is an accomplishment and in the second, an achievement. Ramchand does not detail the syntactic mechanisms associated with the (lack of) extension of the process, thus, it is not clear how the extension takes place techni­ cally, although most likely it is not via another functional projection. It would pre­ sumably have to be via a feature. If this is so, it is not immediately clear how the it takes x-time construction can elicit two interpretations from a [+extended] feature on the V head of accomplishments, but only one from a [–extended] feature on the V head of achievements. Ramchand (2003) explicitly addresses the ote mapping phenomenon, noting the examples in (41) from the consumption verb class.



Chapter 1.  An introduction to the syntax of inner aspect 

(41) a. Michael ate apples/ice cream for an hour/*in an hour. b. Michael ate the apple/five apples *for an hour/in an hour.

She takes “the telicity effects in the class of creation/consumption verbs with quan­ tized objects to be semantic entailments and not encoded in the lexical determination of the verb or its syntactic reflexes.” (Ramchand 2003: 12). Thus, the ote mapping has no representation as such in her system. Therefore, es is represented indepen­ dently from the ote mapping. 3.2.3  Travis in prep36 Travis (in prep) derives the four aspectual predicate classes by adopting the feature specification from Vendler (1967) shown in (42).37 (42) –Definite +Definite

–Process State Achievement

+Process Activity Accomplishment

With respect to the mapping to syntax, Travis (in prep: 142) proposes that “… the feature ± process … [is] … represented in V1 and is what distinguishes Achievements and States on one hand from Accomplishments and Activities on the other…The ±telic (definite) feature distinguishes accomplishments and achievements from ac­ tivities and states. This feature is a computed feature that appears in Asp.” She proposes the structure in (43) as the basic phrase structure that she adopts. (43)

V1P V 1′

DP V1 ±PROCESS

Computational domain of Inner Aspect

AspP DP

Asp′ ASP ±TELICT

V2P V2′

DP Not in computational domain of Inner Aspect



V2

PP



.  The present discussion of Travis (in prep) is developed from her unfinished manuscript online last updated August 2006. The discussion in based on that version. .  Table taken from Travis (in prep: 129).

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

Accomplishments and achievements share the feature +definite on Asp, and differ in that accomplishments have a +process feature on V1 while achievements have a –process feature on V1. It seems possible to attribute the two interpretations elicited by the it takes x-time construction with accomplishments to the two +fea­ tures. One could argue that when +process is present on V1 and is modified by it takes x-time, the result is a start-time interpretation. When +telic is present on asp and it is modified by it takes x-time, the result is an end-time interpretation. This works for accomplishments, but it is not clear that it works for achievements; for, as we noted above, achievements elicit an unambiguous start-time interpretation with it takes x-time. However, given the featural specification of achievements in the system developed by Travis, achievements should be specified as –process and +telic, which, if the it takes x-time construction modifies these features as we are hypothesizing, would entail that there should be an unambiguous end-time inter­ pretation with achievements, contrary to what we have seen. Travis (in prep: 142) states the following: “In order for a Theme to be able to measure out a predicate, it must have moved to Spec, AspP (or, perhaps, have entered into an agree relationship with asp).” This is how she represents the ote mapping. On the other hand, es is determined by the predicate’s featural specifi­ cation. Thus, the mechanisms in Travis do allow her to represent es and the ote mapping property as distinct properties.38 Nevertheless, recall that we saw in section 2 above that the contributions of an np and a goal pp to aspectual interpretation were not the same. It is not clear that Travis’s system allows for this. For, note that she allows for a variety of elements to contribute to the specification of the telic feature on Asp: “the verb head, the object, and the goal/result XPs.” (Travis in prep: 142). In order to do so, an element must merge within the computational domain of inner aspect. The Theme in Spec, V2 is not in this domain and does not contribute to the telic feature unless it establishes the correct relation with AspP. Thus, several distinct elements can contribute to the specification of the telic feature on AspP by being within the computational domain of inner aspect. This includes the np partici­ pating in the ote mapping as well as a goal pp, although exactly how a goal PP does so is not clear.

.  We will see that the system that I argue for is similar to Travis’s system with respect to this way of separating es from the ote mapping, although it differs in several technical details and is motivated by a different range of data.



Chapter 1.  An introduction to the syntax of inner aspect 

4.  An outline of the present syntactic account of inner aspect Here, I outline the system of inner aspect that I argue for in the remainder of the book. For now I only highlight the technical details and how they account for the three ob­ servations regarding English inner aspect mentioned in section 2 above. The motiva­ tion for these technical choices can be found primarily in chapters two to four. I claim that the ote mapping is syntactically instantiated via Agree with an aspectual projection between vP and vp: AspP. If a [–q]np Agrees with Asp, then the predicate will be atelic; if a [+q]np Agrees with Asp, the predicate can be telic. (I discuss when it is telic and when it is atelic in the presence of a [+q] np in chapter three, section 3.) I claim that the es of a predicate is represented as inter­ pretable features that express that the event has a beginning and/or an end. If there is a beginning to the event there is an 〈ie〉 feature present in the predicate; if there is an end to the event, there is an 〈 fe〉 feature present. In this way, es and the ote mapping property are treated as independent properties. I assume that there are four basic aspectual types following Vendler (1967): statives, activities, accomplishments and achievements. We will see throughout the book that there are subtypes to each class, although all subtypes of the same class behave the same aspectually.39 There are at least two ways to divide the four aspec­ tual predicate types. The first is between stative and eventive predicates (i.e., activities, accomplishments, and achievements). This division is captured in the system by the presence or absence of the aspectual projection AspP in the verb phrase. Eventive predicates have AspP, as illustrated in (44a), and stative predicates lack AspP, as illustrated in (44b). (44)

a.

...vP v

b.





v

AspP Asp

VP V

...vP VP V

...

...

The second way to divide up the four aspectual predicates types is between atelic and telic predicates. Activities and statives are atelic and accomplishments

.  Smith (1991: 29) claims that there is another aspectual predicate type: semelfactives. I do not discuss semelfactives.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

and achievements are telic. I assume that only predicates with both event fea­ tures are telic (i.e., events that have both a beginning and an end), all else is atelic. Activities have the basic syntactic aspectual structure in (45a) and statives, the one in (45b). (45)

a.

...vP v

b.



v

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

VP V



...vP VP V

...

...

Observe that activities have only an 〈ie〉 feature and statives have none; thus, these predicates are atelic. The 〈ie〉 feature of activities expresses that the event has a beginning. Statives do not have any event features, and therefore they have no subevent structure. Accomplishments have the basic syntactic aspectual structure in (46a) and achievements, the one in (46b). (46)

a.

...vP

v

b.





v

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

VP〈fe〉 V 〈fe〉

...vP AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

...

〈fe〉 〈ie〉

VP V

...

Both accomplishments and achievements have an 〈ie〉 feature and an 〈 fe〉 feature. There is both a beginning and an end to the events these predicates de­ scribe; they are both telic. For accomplishments, time is interpreted as elapsing between the beginning and the end of the event. For achievements, no time is interpreted as elapsing between the beginning and the end of the event. These distinct interpretations result from the distinct syntactic relations between the event features. There is a c-command relation between the 〈ie〉 and 〈 fe〉 feature of accomplishments and, consequently, time is interpreted to elapse between the beginning and the end of the event. There is no c-command relation between the 〈ie〉 and 〈 fe〉 feature of achievements and, consequently, time is not interpreted to elapse between the beginning and the end of the event. The lack of a c-command relation between the event features of achievements results from the event feature



Chapter 1.  An introduction to the syntax of inner aspect 

configuration appearing on Asp, which I argue is derived from a lexical process. In this way, achievements and accomplishments are represented differently. I argue in chapter three that the it takes x-time construction is ambiguous with accom­ plishments because both the beginning and the end of the event are visible for modification. In contrast, only the beginning of the event is visible for modifica­ tion with achievements due to the event feature configuration on Asp. A typology of syntactic aspectual predicate types according to this system is summarized in tree format in (47). (47)

Aspectual Predicate Type No AspP Statives

AspP (Eventives) 〈ie〉

〈ie〉 & 〈fe〉 (telic)

Activities same head





Achievements

different head Accomplishments

5.  The rest of the book In chapter two, I focus on the ote mapping property of English. I argue for the existence of AspP between vP and vp and claim that there are three properties dependent on it: 1. The ote mapping; 2. A specific multiple events interpretation of bare plurals; and 3. A domain of aspectual interpretation in which elements must appear in order to be able to contribute to the aspectual interpretation of the predicate. In order to draw these conclusions, I undertake an investigation of the aspectual effects of the durative phrase; I conclude that it is syntactically compat­ ible with all aspectual predicates types, although it elicits different interpretations depending on the telicity of the predicate. In chapter three, I focus on es. I claim that es reduces to whether an event has a beginning and/or an end. Event structure modifiers (i.e., almost and the it takes x-time construction) target the beginning and end of events. I discuss the ways in which es interacts with tense as well. I claim that es is represented as interpretable event features (i.e., 〈ie〉 and 〈 fe〉). I also address the way in which the ote mapping affects the interpretation of the es of a predicate. Finally, I provide data that suggests that the aspectual calcula­ tion of a predicate takes place at the vP phase. In chapter four, I focus on achieve­ ments. I argue for a Hale & Keyser style lexical derivational approach to the es of

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

achievements. This lexical approach to achievements makes a surprising prediction about accomplishments; there are no accomplishments in the lexicon. I discuss the aspectual properties of idioms as a way to test the prediction. I also suggest that there may be lexical edges on a par with phase edges, which would not be surprising from a minimalist perspective. Some interesting properties of verbs of inherently directed motion bear on this suggestion. In chapter five, I discuss varia­ tion in inner aspect. I argue that we can minimally distinguish stative predicates from eventive predicates in English by the absence of AspP in the former and its presence in the latter. Moreover, this is precisely how we can distinguish Russian from English; Russian lacks AspP in its inventory of functional categories, while English has AspP. The picture turns out to be that there is no formal difference between cross-linguistic variation and intra-linguistic; it is just variation. I offer a minimalist conception of language variation in which this is not unexpected. Furthermore, and natural to a discussion of variant properties, I discuss universal properties of inner aspect. AspP is the variant property of inner aspect. This leaves us with event features as potential universal properties of inner aspect. I claim that this is a natural expectation and show how lexical and superlexical prefixes in Russian can be accounted for with event features. In chapter six, I claim that inner aspect is autonomous. I argue for its lexical, syntactic and semantic autonomy. Essentially, I argue that event features are independent of the projections on which they appear, that case and aspect are independent syntactic relations, and that es is independent of both thematic relations and lexical meaning. In chapter seven, I apply the system to a larger range of data that have been noted to be aspectually relevant. These include resultatives, way and fake-reflexive constructions, con­ atives, and psych-achievements. Finally, in chapter eight, I summarize the tech­ nical account argued for in this book. I also explicitly address the main concern of this book: the syntactic nature of inner aspect. I recap the main conclusions regarding the syntactic nature of inner aspect that have been reached from this study. I also speculate on a few potential alternatives to the system developed here and offer extensions to it.

chapter 2

The syntax of eventives 1 An aspectual projection In this chapter I argue for the existence of an aspectual projection, AspP, between vP and vp. In and of itself, the proposal that there is an aspectual projection (or more than one aspectual projection) somehow implicated in the aspectual interpretation of a predicate is not novel (see, for example, Borer (1994, 1998, 2005); Ramchand (1993); Ritter & Rosen (1998, 2000); Travis (1991, 2000, in prep); and van Hout (2000, 2004), some of which are discussed in detail in chapter one). Moreover, it has been previously proposed that an aspectual projection appears between vP and vp (see Travis 1991, 2000, in prep). The novelty of the present proposal is two-fold: First, I argue that there are three specific properties dependent on AspP: 1. Agree with Asp is the syntactic instantiation of the ote mapping; 2. Bare plurals (bps) elicit an aspectually relevant multiple events interpretation by moving to Spec, AspP; and 3. AspP itself determines a domain of aspectual interpretation, a syntactic space in which elements must be located in order to contribute to the aspectual interpretation of the predicate. Second, these properties dependent on AspP are independent of the es properties of the predicate. We will see in chapter three, that the ote mapping affects the interpretation of the es of the predicate, but only in an indirect way. Furthermore, given their independence, a natural expectation is that there is a language in which one of these two independent properties is not present. Foreshadowing the discussion of language variation in chapter five, I argue that Russian is just such a language; it lacks AspP in its lexical inventory. We will see that it lacks the three properties dependent on it as well.1 Nevertheless, this still leaves Russian with es. The present chapter is structured as follows: In section 1, I discuss what the durative phrase in English tells us about inner aspect. We will see that it is syntactically compatible with all aspectual predicate types, although the interpretation elicited in the presence of the durative is dependent on the aspectual interpretation

.  We will also see in chapter five that English stative predicates lack AspP, as well as these three properties.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

of the predicate. In section 2, I begin to argue for the existence of AspP between vP and vp. In 2.1 I discuss the ote mapping property, noting in 2.1.1 that the property of the internal argument that participates in the ote mapping is most likely closer to np than to dp. In 2.1.2 I discuss the aspectual interpretation and distribution of mns. Aspectually, mns elicit an atelic interpretation of the predicate, and they do so only as internal arguments. In 2.1.3, I discuss the aspectual distribution and interpretation of bps. Aspectually, they elicit a multiple events interpretation, and they do so only from positions internal to the verb phrase. The corresponding interpretations and distributions of mns and bps can be explained by positing AspP between vP and vp, with which they establish distinct relations. In section 3, I provide further evidence for AspP by showing that elements above AspP (i.e., CAUSE, external arguments, and location PPs) do not contribute to the aspectual interpretation of the predicate, while elements below it do. AspP defines a syntactic space in which elements can contribute to the aspectual interpretation of the predicate. This leads to a straightforward structural account of the two-way ambiguous goal-location PPs of English. In section 4, I conclude by noting how the conclusions reached in this chapter lead us to chapter three. 1.  The durative phrase Much argumentation regarding the distribution and interpretation of mns and bps in this chapter comes from the interpretation of predicates in the presence of a durative phrase (e.g., for an hour).2 Therefore, I dedicate this section to laying out some facts about the durative. I provide evidence that shows that the durative phrase is syntactically compatible with all aspectual predicate types (i.e., achievements, accomplishment, activities, and statives). As noted by Tenny (1987: 23) and Alsina (1999: 83), it elicits different interpretations of a predicate depending on whether the predicate is telic or atelic. With atelic predicates there is a single event interpretation. With telic predicates, in contrast, there is a multiple (iterative) events interpretation. We will see that the incompatibility of the durative with some telic predicates arises in part because of this iterative interpretation and in part because of the type of action expressed by the verb itself. In the literature on inner aspect, it has been standard to only consider the aspectual relevance of the durative phrase on a single-event (or semelfactive) interpretation of the event described by a predicate, as in Borer (2005), Ramchand (2003), .  The for-adverbial here falls within a larger class of time adverbs (see Csirmaz forthcoming), or measure adverbs (see Moltmann 1991). My discussion in this section focuses on the foradverbial alone, which I refer to as a durative (phrase).



Chapter 2.  The syntax of eventives 1: An aspectual projection 

Ritter & Rosen (1998), Schmitt (1996), and Verkuyl (1993), among others. The following statement from Verkuyl (2000: 170) is indicative of this: “An adverbial such as for an hour applied to [Judith ate a sandwich] excludes the single-event interpretation of [Judith ate a sandwich], the result being some other form of aspectuality (a queer sort of repetition)…” Thus, on a single-event interpretation of a predicate the durative is incompatible with a telic predicate, as in (1), and compatible with an atelic predicate, as in (2). (1) a. The kid ate an apple b. The farmer drank a jug of beer (2) a. The kid drank soda b. The farmer built farm equipment

#for ten minutes. #for an hour. for ten minutes. for two hours.

Other atelic predicates include transitive activities, as in (3), intransitive activities, as in (4), and statives, as in (5). All are compatible with a durative phrase. (3) a. The mechanic towed the car b. The worker carried the bag

for an hour. for an hour.

(4) a. John screamed b. Bill laughed

for an hour. for an hour.

(5) a. The boy loved the girl b. The lawyer owned a Lexus

for a year. for a year.

Although this single-event approach to the interpretation of the durative phrase is the standard way to approach data of this sort, a large number of authors have noted that a durative phrase is in fact compatible with a telic predicate under an iterative interpretation (Alsina 1999: 83; Jackendoff 1996: 308 n.6; Schmitt 1996: 12 n.2; Tenny 1987: 22; Vanden Wyngaerd 2001: 77).3 In fact, Schmitt (2000: 280) notes that generally when a predicate expresses a telic event, the telic event can be iterated. In her words, “terminative readings will allow repetition of the vp in the general case.” Consider two types of telic predicates that illustrate this: a pp-accomplishment in (6) and a psych-achievement in (7).4 (6) a. The farmer dragged a log into the barn b. The child pushed a ball into the closet c. The girl drove a car onto the beach

for an hour. for an hour. for three hours.

.  Cross-linguistically, there is variation with respect to whether an iterative interpretation is available in the presence of a durative phrase with telic predicates. For example, Spanish and Russian (with a lexically prefixed verb; see chapter five) do not allow an iterative interpretation. .  I discuss psych-achievements in more detail in chapter seven, section 3.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

(7) a. The captain spotted a plane b. The musician detected a sound

for an hour. for ten minutes.

These predicates are grammatical with a durative phrase on an interpretation that the events they express repeat an indefinite number of times for the amount of time specified by the durative. Thus, (6a) expresses that a farmer dragged a log into the barn over and over again for an hour. A context for this interpretation might be one in which there is an inclined plank leading into the barn such that each time the farmer got the log to the top, and therefore inside the barn, the log rolled back down. Likewise, in (7a), the captain could have been looking to the skies when a plane passed into and out of view continuously for the period of an hour. Thus, under an iterative interpretation, durative phrases are compatible with these telic predicates. The iterative interpretation serves to show what the durative is actually modifying: the entire event.5 An iterative interpretation results because the durative forces a telic predicate to continue for a certain amount of time; since there is an end to the event, the end is reached over and over for the amount of time specified by the durative (Alsina 1999: 83–84). Ultimately the repetition of a telic event results in the repetition of subevents of the same type. What actually iterates then are these subevents, and they do so for the length of time specified by the durative. The durative expresses how long the entire event lasts; the subevents make up this event. Observe in (8) that in the presence of a bp (and a durative phrase), these iterative subevents are more salient.6 (8) a. John ate apples b. John spotted planes

for an hour. for an hour.

What happens for an hour is that John ate one apple, then another and so on. These apple eating subevents make up the entire event that continues for an hour. The same goes for plane spotting in (8b).

.  Alsina (1999: 83–84) claims that the durative can have scope over the entire event or over some parts of it. This seems to be the case in English, but not in Russian. In Russian the durative seems to have scope only over a part of the event. See chapter five, section 4 for a discussion of the Russian facts. Larson (2003: 247) analyzes the durative as measuring “event-stuff ”, in contrast to “time-stuff ” (i.e., temporal (sub)intervals). .  I discuss the interpretation elicited by bps in more detail below in section 2.2.



Chapter 2.  The syntax of eventives 1: An aspectual projection 

With atelic predicates the durative does not force a multiple events interpretation. This follows from the fact that the predicates are atelic (i.e., they have no endpoint) and can continue for the length of time specified by the durative without terminating, and therefore without repeating. The result is a single event interpretation.7 The durative phrase modifies the entire event described by the predicate and elicits distinct interpretations depending on the telicity of the predicate. Thus, it should be the case that the durative is compatible with all predicates. Reconsider the standard accomplishments from (1), repeated below in (9); they seem to be counterexamples to this conclusion. (9) a. The kid ate an apple b. The farmer drank a jug of beer

#for ten minutes. #for an hour.

In order to explain the incompatibility of the durative in these sentences, observe an interesting fact about the iterative interpretations of the telic predicates in (6) and (7) from above; they require that the same object undergo the action expressed by the verb in each of the iterated subevents.8 That is, in (6a), it must be the same log dragged into the barn each time. Given that the direct object is a singular indefinite, there is no a priori reason why a variable interpretation should be excluded, but it is. With this fact in mind, consider the predicates in (9) again. They express telic events, and as such, in the presence of the durative, the result is an iterative interpretation. With the iterative interpretation there is a requirement that the same object undergo the action expressed by the verb repeatedly. The problem that arises with the predicates in (9) is that the objects that undergo the action expressed by the verbs cannot undergo the action more than once, given the nature of the action expressed by these verbs. That is, once an apple is eaten, given normal pragmatic circumstances, it cannot be eaten again. Likewise, once the beer in a jug is drunk, it cannot be drunk again. Thus, the durative is incompatible with these

.  By single event interpretation, I mean that there is no linguistically encoded endpoint expressed. Of course, in the real world, when one eats cake for an hour, for example, there can be a moment during the cake eating event in which the person goes to the other room and turns on music, returning to continue eating cake, and thereby starting and stopping the cake eating event. Nevertheless, no end to the cake eating event is linguistically encoded, and consequently, there is no interpretation that the cake eating event is repeated; there is no multiple events interpretation, only a single event interpretation. .  Carlson (1977: 422) and Moltmann (1991: 632) observe this wide scope effect in the presence of the durative. See also footnote 24 below.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

predicates because of the nature of the actions expressed by these verbs, not simply because these predicates describe events interpreted as telic.9,10 Given these facts, I conclude that, syntactically, durative phrases are compatible with all predicate types in English and they modify the entire event described by the predicate expressing that the event continues for the length of time specified by the durative.11 When the predicate is telic, a multiple (iterative) events interpretation results. When the predicate is atelic, a single event interpretation results.12 I claim that the durative adjoins to the vP (or to an event phrase above vp as in, for example, Borer 2005; Travis 2000, in prep.) and in this way modifies the entire event described by the predicate.13,14 The proposed structure is illustrated in (10).

.  Jackendoff (1996: 308 n.6) observes this fact about the influence of the durative as well. .  Consider the sentence: John built a barn for two weeks. You might ask if we take the barn apart and put it back together in exactly the same way with the exact same pieces, is it still the same barn? If it is still the same barn, then the durative should be compatible. If it is not the same barn, then the durative should not be compatible. Regardless of this metaphysical issue, the linguistic facts are predicted to pattern as described above. .  Note there do seem to be some speakers that find sentences like the one in (9) to be grammatical under the interpretation that the apple was not finished – Alsina (1999: 103), Jackendoff (1996: 306), and Tenny (1987: 22) report the availability of these judgments as well – as if the durative modified only the beginning of the event. For me, the sentences in (9) are ungrammatical. .  Note that for expository ease, I sometimes state that “a durative is incompatible on a single event interpretation”. This entails that the durative would be grammatical on an iterative interpretation, unless, of course, the predicate in question is of the type in (9). .  Ernst (2002: 341) concludes that duration expressions occur in the “AuxRange”, a cover term for the area between subjects and main verbs in VO languages. Ernst (2002: 10) also summarizes some previous adverb subclassification schemes in which the upper shell of a vp shell structure is often associated with the event itself, while the lower shell is associated with event internal properties. .  It is not clear that stating that the durative phrase is compatible only with homogenous predicates (see, for example, Csirmaz forthcoming; Moltmann 1991) is sufficient to characterize the patterns just discussed. If we define homogeneity as divisivity, then we face the well-known minimal parts problem, often simply set aside as if it were not a real problem. It does not explain why some telic predicates are incompatible with the durative as in (9), and why some are compatible on a particular interpretation, as in (7). If we define homogeneity as cumulativity, then it is not clear that an iterative event is any less cumulative than an atelic event; yet, as illustrated in section 2.2.1 below, telic predicates on an iterative interpretation allow modification by both the time span adverbial (e.g., in ten minutes) at the same time as the durative phrase, while this is not the case for atelic predicates. Homogeneity does not explain these facts.



Chapter 2.  The syntax of eventives 1: An aspectual projection 

(10)

...vP

vP v





PP VP

V

for ten minutes ...

Evidence for the high adjunction site of the durative comes from do so construction facts. The durative phrase is perfectly grammatical in the do so construction, as shown in (11). (11) a. b.

The kid ate cake for ten minutes and the goat did so for twenty. The farmer drank beer for ten minutes and the soldier did so for twenty.

Consider other evidence in (12) that suggests that the durative is at least structurally higher than the external argument. (12) a. A boy spotted a plane b. A boy carried a bag into the barn

for an hour. for an hour.

These predicates are telic, and therefore the durative forces an iterative interpretation. As noted above the same object must undergo the action expressed by the event in each of the iterated subevents. Moreover, note here that the same agent must also participate in each of the iterated subevents. Whatever the ultimate account of the durative that forces that both the internal and external argument be the same ones participating in each of the iterated subevents, both the internal argument and the external argument are subject to this requirement. If the durative is above vP, this would follow straightforwardly as a structural consequence. 2.  An aspectual projection between vP and vp15 In this section I provide evidence for an aspectual projection, AspP, between vP and vp (see also Travis 1991, 2000, in prep). I argue that three properties of English eventive predicates are dependent on this aspectual projection: 1. The

.  Much of the discussion in sections 2 and 3 appears in MacDonald (2008).

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

ote mapping; 2. A particular multiple events interpretation elicited by bps; and 3. The ability of a goal pp to turn an atelic predicate into a telic predicate. 2.1  The object-to-event mapping Before arguing explicitly for AspP, I first note that there is evidence to suggest that the property of the internal argument that enters into the ote mapping is a property of np, not dp. 2.1.1  NPs enter into the object-to-event mapping, not DPs Consider the example in (13) often put forth as a standard example of a telic predicate. (13) John drank the beer.

In the right context, however, the event described by this predicate can be interpreted as atelic. Consider a party in which several kegs of beer all from the same brewery and batch were present. The next day, the hosts of the party see that there is some beer left and taste it. They find that it tastes a little funny and question its quality. (14) can be uttered in response to their concern. (14) John drank the beer for three hours and he didn’t notice anything.

There is a definite determiner in (14) and the event described by the predicate is interpreted as atelic.16 Observe that the atelic interpretation is more accessible in the presence of a demonstrative, as illustrated in (15). (15) John drank that beer for three hours and he didn’t notice anything.

Consider another context in which there is a batch of rice made for some large event, and the cook wonders if anyone ate the rice, as it was a new recipe. (16) can be uttered and understood as describing an atelic event, even though the internal argument has a definite determiner. (16) June ate the rice for an hour. She liked it so much.17

.  Jackendoff (1996: 307 n.5) also makes a similar observation. His example is the following: Bill ate the custard for hours/until he was full. Nishida (1994: 430–431) observes similar facts with respect to the definite determiner in Spanish as well. .  Possessive pronouns pattern with the definite determiner in this respect: June ate her rice for an hour. She liked it so much.



Chapter 2.  The syntax of eventives 1: An aspectual projection 

The same goes for the sentence in (17). (17) John ate the cake (that was made in mass quantities for his b-day) for an hour.

Schmitt (1996) observes similar facts with relative clause internal arguments.18 They are illustrated in (18). (18) a. Bill wrote the junkmail that Sam asked for for years. b. The maid discarded the trash that Mary produced for years.

One possible account of these facts is that there are two types of DPs; one that is [–q] and one that is [+q]. If this were the case, then we might expect that any np (that can take a definite determiner) could elicit both a telic and atelic interpretation of a predicate. We would only have to merge the np with a [+q]D for a telic interpretation of the predicate and with a [–q]D for an atelic interpretation of the predicate. However, this does not seem to be possible. For, observe that the predicates in (19) only receive a telic interpretation; the np internal arguments can only be interpreted as [+q], regardless of the context. (19) a. John destroyed the city b. John built the doghouse c. John wrote the letter

#for a day. #for a day. #for an hour.

Schmitt (1996) observes similar facts as well, as illustrated in (20).19 (20) a. Chomsky wrote that book b. Chomsky wrote the book that revolutionized the field

#for years. #for years.

These data suggest that the [q] feature that values Asp is not a feature of the definite determiner, but is more likely a feature of the np. If this is the case, then we expect that the [q] feature depends on the noun in question, perhaps for ontological reasons (see Harley 2005). First consider some nouns that can felicitously be interpreted as either [+q] or [–q]. The nouns from (13) to (17) are such nouns. In those examples the nps are interpreted as [–q]. Observe below in (21) that the indefinite determiner forces a [+q] interpretation of them. (21) a. John drank a beer b. The girl ate a cake

#for an hour. #for an hour.

.  Examples in (18) taken from Schmitt (1996: 196–197). .  Examples in (20) taken from Schmitt (1996: 187).

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

Nouns that resist a [–q] interpretation are illustrated in (19) and (20). There are also nps that are less likely to receive a [+q] interpretation. Observe that these nps cannot be the complement of an indefinite determiner, illustrated in (22). (22) a. *John built an equipment. b. *Mary wrote a junkmail. c. *George watched a rain.

Observe furthermore, that these nps can be the complement of a definite determiner or demonstrative and only an atelic interpretation results, as shown in (23).20 (23) a. John built the/that equipment for an hour, before going blind. b. Joe wrote the/that junkmail for a week, before losing his soul.

These data suggest that the [q] feature that enters into the ote mapping of a predicate is closer to the np layer than to the dp layer.21 If the dp itself were responsible for introducing the [q] feature, it would not be clear why all nps could not elicit either a telic or an atelic interpretation of a predicate. This is not the case. Therefore, throughout the discussion, I refer to [±q]nps, not [±q]DPs.22 2.1.2  The aspectual interpretation and distribution of mass nouns In chapter one, we saw the ote mapping with both standard accomplishments and pp-accomplishments.23 Let us consider pp-accomplishments again. Observe that

.  I find a time span adverbial to be odd with these sentences when expressing the amount of time that passes before the event ends: John built the/that equipment ??in an hour. Mary wrote the/that junkmail ??in an hour. This is consistent with the conclusion that these nps can only bear a [–q] feature. .  Note that if we assume that the np is responsible for the [q] feature, then we avoid any discussion of whether or not mns have a dp layer at all. This suggests that if in fact there is no dp layer in Slavic languages, it is not directly related to the fact that the internal argument cannot contribute to the aspectual interpretation of the predicate. Under the present analysis, whether or not nps lack a dp layer in Slavic languages is independent of whether or not there is an ote mapping. As we will see in chapter five, the reason why the [±q] nature of an np cannot affect the aspectual interpretation of a predicate in Russian results from the fact that Russian lacks AspP in its inventory of functional projections. .  When we consider the count/mass distinction, which is very closely related to the [±q] distinction, we find similar patterns. There are some nouns that more commonly head countable nps, there are some nouns that more commonly head uncountable nps, and there are some that can easily head either np type (Allen 1980: 548). .  I should note that these predicates are only accomplishments when there is a [+q] internal argument. If a [–q] internal argument surfaces, they behaves like activities, as we will see.



Chapter 2.  The syntax of eventives 1: An aspectual projection 

a durative phrase elicits an iterative interpretation when the internal argument is a [+q]np, as illustrated in (24). (24) a. The farmer dragged a log into the barn b. The kid pushed a stereo into the garage c. The girl carried a bag into the store

for an hour. for an hour. for an hour.

There is an iteration of subevents, and the object in motion that arrives at the goal is the same object in motion in each of these iterated subevents.24 Thus, (24a) expresses that there was a single log that the farmer dragged into the barn over and over for an hour. (24b) expresses that there was a single stereo that the kid pushed into the garage over and over for an hour. A parallel interpretation is available for (24c). I will refer to this multiple events interpretation in which the same object is implicated in each of the iterated subevents as a sequence of identical events interpretation, an sie interpretation.25 Now consider these sentences with a mn (i.e., [–q]np) internal argument in (25). (25) a. The farmer dragged kindling into the barn b. The kid pushed stereo equipment into the garage c. The girl carried sand into the store

for an hour. for an hour. for an hour.

There is no sie interpretation here; as expected, there is only a single event interpretation. Now let us determine the aspectual distribution of mns. Where mns do not elicit a single event interpretation of the predicate, we expect an sie interpretation. Consider the interpretation of the predicates below in (26) in which a mn is the complement of a goal P.

Thus, accomplishments with a [–q] internal argument are not accomplishments at all. I retain the use of accomplishment in these cases for ease of exposition. .  As noted above in section 1, the denotation of the external argument must also be the same in each of the iterated subevents. I note here that the denotation of the complement of the goal P must also be the same in each of the iterated subevents. Essentially, all singular arguments in these predicates are interpreted as involved in each of the iterated subevents. Carlson (1977: 422) observes this wide scope effect as well. This is a mysterious fact given that an indefinite in principle can behave as a variable, and it is logically possible that a variable interpretation in which there is a different object per subevent be available in the presence of the durative. In fact, we see below in section 2.2.1.2 that when the durative expresses a longer period of time, eliciting a habitual interpretation – a distinct multiple events interpretation – this requirement is lifted; a singular indefinite can receive a variable interpretation. Therefore, it is not fact about iterated subevents in general. .  We will see below in section 2.2 that bps elicit a distinct multiple events interpretation.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

(26) a. The farmer dragged a 10ft. 2x4 onto pavement b. The kid pushed a sofa onto grass c. The girl carried a ladder onto asphalt

for an hour. for an hour. for an hour.

The only interpretation available for these sentences is an sie interpretation. That is, in (26a), the farmer dragged the same 10ft.2x4 onto pavement over and over for an hour. Likewise in (26b), there is only an interpretation in which the same sofa was pushed onto grass over and over for an hour.26 The same goes for (26c). No atelic interpretation results because the mn as a complement of the goal preposition does not affect the aspectual interpretation of the predicate. Note moreover, that the time span adverbial can express the amount of time that passes before the event ends in these sentences as shown in (27), suggesting that indeed these predicates are telic. (27) a. The farmer dragged a 10ft. 2x4 onto pavement b. The kid pushed a sofa onto grass c. The girl carried a ladder onto asphalt

in 10 mins. in 10 mins. in 10 mins.

Observe in (28) below that a mn subject does not have any aspectual effect on the predicate either.27 Only an sie interpretation is available for these sentences with a durative phrase. (28) a. Wildlife dragged the bag of trash into the forest b. Moving equipment pushed the sofa into the garage c. Livestock carried the log into the barn

for an hour. for an hour. for an hour.

Note also that the time span adverbial is compatible, expressing the amount of time that passes before the event ends, as illustrated in (29). (29) a. Wildlife dragged the bag of trash into the forest b. Moving equipment pushed the sofa into the garage c. Livestock carried the log into the barn

in 10 mins. in 10 mins. in 10 mins.

Further confirmation that mn external arguments do not affect the aspectual interpretation of the predicate comes from a consideration of standard accomplishments with mn external arguments. Recall that standard accomplishments are incompatible with the durative phrase for pragmatic reasons, because of the nature of the action expressed by the verb. If mn external arguments do elicit an atelic interpretation of the predicate, then their presence with standard accomplishments should result in the compatibility of a durative phrase, similarly to .  The mn as the complement of a goal P might be slightly odd here for some. However, in the context of a competition, for example, in which no part of the 2x4 can be on pavement, these sentences are perfectly felicitous. .  Tenny (1987: 148) notes that “Delimitedness is encoded within the vp; the external argument is outside the domain in which delimitedness is determined.”



Chapter 2.  The syntax of eventives 1: An aspectual projection 

mn internal arguments, as observed in example (4) from chapter one, section 2. Observe in (30) that this is not the case. (30) a. Livestock drank a tub of water b. Wildlife ate a herb garden c. Automated equipment built a bicycle

#for an hour. #for an hour. #for an hour.

As external arguments, mns do not affect the aspectual interpretation of the predicate. Note as expected, the time span adverbial is compatible in this case as well, modifying the end of the event. This is shown in (31). (31) a. Livestock drank a tub of water b. Wildlife ate a herb garden c. Automated equipment built a bicycle

in 10 mins. in 10 mins. in 10 mins.

mns, and [–q]nps more generally, can contribute to the aspectual interpretation of the predicate only as internal arguments. Only as internal arguments can their presence result in an atelic interpretation of a predicate. mn external arguments and complements of goal prepositions do not contribute to the aspectual interpretation of a predicate. 2.1.3  Agree with Asp: The syntactic instantiation of the object-to-event mapping To account for the aspectual distribution of mns, I claim that there is an aspectual projection, AspP, between vP and vp and that mns must Agree with Asp to elicit an atelic interpretation of a predicate. Thus, for a sentence as in (32a), I propose the structure in (32b). (32) a. A kid dragged wood into a barn. vP b. v′

DP a kid

v

AspP VP

Asp [–q] DP

V′

wood V [–q] drag



PP P into

DP a barn

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

The mn Agrees with Asp and values it; the arrow indicates this valuing relation. More generally, I assume that the Agree relation with Asp is the syntactic instantiation of the ote mapping. Ignoring transitive activities for the time being,28 if a [–q]np (i.e., a mn) values Asp, the event will be interpreted as atelic. If a [+q]np values Asp the event will be interpreted as telic. Given the nature of Agree, only the closest np can Agree with Asp. Thus, only the internal argument of the verb can value Asp. This straightforwardly accounts for the aspectual distribution of mns. Consider evidence that suggests that closeness to Asp (captured by Agree) is the relevant relation for an np to enter into the ote mapping. Borer (2005: 47–49) observes that the relationship between the np that enters into the ote mapping and the verb cannot be captured via a thematic/selectional relation (see also Hoekstra 1988: 115–116). Consider the sentences in (33). (33) a. John walked the letter *(to the post office)   for an hour. b. A bear danced its way *(into the barn)   for an hour.

The objects in these sentences are not licensed by the verb; there is no clear thematic or selectional relation between these objects and the verbs. Without the secondary predicates the objects are not licensed, as shown in (34). (34) a. *John walked the letter. b. *A bear danced its way.

Nevertheless, these objects participate in the ote mapping. Note that while the predicates in (33) are telic (evidenced by the sie interpretation elicited in the presence of the durative), the predicates in (35) below are atelic. (35) a. John walked mail *(to the post office) b. Wildlife danced its way *(into the barn)

for an hour. for an hour.

The object mail in (35a) is a [–q]np and the predicate is atelic. In (35b), the [q] feature of the external argument controls the [q] feature of its way.29 Wildlife is a [–q]np and its way is interpreted as [–q]. The result is that the predicate is atelic. These objects participate in the ote mapping although there is no thematic/ selectional relation between them and the verbs. Agree captures this relation quite naturally. The closest np to Asp is the np that enters into the ote mapping.30 .  I discuss transitive activities in more detail in chapter three. .  I discuss predicates of this type, and their relevance with respect to indicating the time at which the aspectual calculation of a predicate takes place in narrow syntax in more detail in chapter three, section 3.2. .  An incorporation account of mns would seem to account for the aspectual distribution of mns as well. However, an np that incorporates must be indefinite. See, for example, Carlson



Chapter 2.  The syntax of eventives 1: An aspectual projection 

As a final more intuitive note on why only the closest np to Asp can enter into the ote mapping, note that the ote mapping affects the basic telic/atelic distinction of the predicate, and it does so to the exclusion of the external argument. This is reminiscent of the effect that an internal argument has on the core meaning of a predicate, to the exclusion of the external argument, as noted in Marantz (1984: 25). Some examples that show this effect on the core meaning of a predicate are given in (36).31 (36)

a. b. c. d. e.

take a book from the shelf take a bus to New York take a nap take an aspirin take a letter in shorthand

Being internal to the verb phrase has a greater influence on the core lexical and aspectual interpretation of a predicate than being external to the verb phrase. 2.2  The sequence of similar events interpretation In this section I discuss the aspectual distribution and interpretation of bps. bps prove to be ambiguous between a mn interpretation and a bp interpretation. Our focus is the bp interpretation; that is, a particular multiple events interpretation. Some reference has been made to the ability of bps to elicit an iterative interpretation of a predicate (see, for example, Ramchand 2003: 13; Verkuyl 1972: 4), although, as far as I know, no explicit syntactic aspectual account of it has been provided. I offer one here. 2.2.1  The aspectual interpretation and distribution of bare plurals Let us compare the interpretations of bps and mns. Consider the vague denotation of mns in (37). (37) a. The guy drank beer. b. The girl ate pizza. c. The kid built safety equipment.

(2006: 37). The relation between the (in)definiteness of an np and its ability to affect the telicity of a predicate does not seem to be one-to-one. Observe that a telic predicate can have an indefinite np: John ate an apple #for an hour. And an atelic predicate can have a definite np: John drank the beer for an hour, as noted above in section 2.1.1. .  Examples taken from Kratzer (1996: 113–114).

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

In (37a), beer could, for example, denote a single sip, a lone bottle, or an entire keg. Similar vague denotations of the mns in (37b) and (37c) are also available. Consider the denotations of the bps in (38). (38) a. The guy drank shots (when he went out). b. The girl ate cookies (in the afternoon). c. The kid built bikes (in his free time).

The contexts in parentheses allow for more of a habitual interpretation of the sentences in (38), which in turn allows for easier access to the interpretation of the bps which I refer to as a mn interpretation. Under this mn interpretation of the bp in (38a), it does not have to be the case that the guy drank multiple shots when he went out. He could have sat the entire night sipping on a single shot each time he went out. The bp has a vague denotation here and consequently there is a salient activity interpretation. This is also the case in (38b). There is no determinate amount of cookies that need to be eaten in the afternoon by the girl for (38b) to be true. It could be the case that she has only half a cookie that she nibbles on; she does not have to eat several cookies, nor even an entire cookie.32 The same goes for the interpretation of the bp in (38c). bps have a vague denotation like mns. This is most likely the interpretation that has motivated the majority of the authors working on inner aspect to assume that mns and bps have the same aspectual effect on the predicate (see, for example, Dowty 1979: 62–63; Pustejovsky 1991: 50; Ritter & Rosen 1998: 139; Tenny 1987: 113). However, there is another more aspectually probing interpretation of bps. Consider the sentences in (39). (39) a. The guy drank shots b. The girl ate cookies c. The kid built bikes

for an hour. for an hour. for three hours.

In (39a), there is an interpretation in which the guy drank one shot, finished it, drank another shot, finished it and continued this way for an hour, drinking an indefinite number of shots. Similarly in (39b), there is an interpretation in which the girl ate one cookie, then another and continued this way for an hour, eating an indefinite number of cookies. The bp in (39c) allows for the same type of interpretation. Essentially there is a multiple events interpretation in which a distinct object undergoes the action expressed by the verb in each of the iterated subevents. This is the sequence of similar events (sse) interpretation. Note that the sse interpretation is available with both a time span adverbial and a durative phrase, as illustrated in (40). .  Thanks to Paolo Acquaviva for pointing this available interpretation of bps out to me. Carlson (1977: 442–443) observes similar facts. De Swart (2006: 173) notes a similar interpretation for French in manger des frites (“eat French fries”) in part as a result of the article des.



(40) a. b. c.

Chapter 2.  The syntax of eventives 1: An aspectual projection 

The guy drank cans of beer in ten seconds for an hour straight. The girl ate apples in ten seconds for an hour. The kid built bikes in an hour for a week straight.

The sse interpretation of the bp in (40a) is that the guy drank a can of beer in ten seconds, then another can of beer in ten seconds, and so on for an hour straight. Similar sse interpretations are available for the bps in (40b) and (40c). Observe, moreover, that no such interpretation is available with mns, as illustrated in (41). (41) a. b. c.

The guy drank beer #in ten seconds for an hour straight. The girl ate cake #in ten seconds for an hour. The kid built equipment #in an hour for a week straight.

bps and mns have distinct aspectual interpretations. mns elicit an atelic interpretation of the predicate and bps elicit an sse interpretation. Let us determine the aspectual distribution of bps. Consider the sentences in (42). (42) a. b. c.

The farmer dragged logs onto a tarp in ten minutes (for an hour straight). The kid pushed stereos into a garage in ten minutes (for an hour straight). The girl carried bags into a store in ten minutes (for an hour straight).

The sse interpretation of (42a) is that the farmer dragged one log onto a tarp in 10 minutes, then another log onto the tarp in 10 minutes and so on for an hour straight. Parallel interpretations are available for (41b) and (41c) as well. Consider the interpretation of bps as complements of goal Ps in (43). (43) a. b. c.

The farmer dragged a log onto tarps in ten minutes (for an hour straight). The kid pushed a stereo onto mats in ten minutes (for an hour straight). The girl carried a bag into bedrooms in ten minutes (for an hour straight).

sse interpretations are available for the bps in (43) as well. In (43a), the farmer dragged a log onto a tarp in 10 minutes, then onto another tarp in 10 minutes and so one for an hour straight. In (43b), the kid pushed a stereo onto one mat in

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

10 minutes, then onto another mat in 10 minutes and so on for an hour straight. An sse interpretation is available for (43c) as well. Let us consider bp external arguments in (44). (44) a. b. c.

Farmers dragged a log onto a tarp in ten minutes (??for an hour straight). Kids pushed a stereo into a garage in ten minutes (??for an hour straight). Girls carried a bag into a store in ten minutes (??for an hour straight).

To begin with, it is not clear that both temporal adverbs are compatible with these predicates at the same time. This suggests that the sse interpretation is most likely not available. Let us ignore the time span adverbial for the time being and consider the interpretation with the durative alone. Although at first blush it does seem like sse interpretations are available due to the presence of the bp external arguments, I contend that this is not so. The apparent sse interpretations are a result of the mn interpretation of the bp in combination with a verb that can express an action that can be carried out on the same object more than once. Given that on a mn interpretation a bp has vague denotation, there is a possible interpretation of the sentence in (44a), for example, in which multiple farmers participated in dragging a log onto a tarp. Moreover, since you can drag the same log onto a tarp over and over, the durative phrase is not incompatible, irrespective of the nps involved. Additionally, since the temporal relation between these apparent multiple events of dragging is also vague, they can be construed as occurring one after another. I claim that this combination of factors is responsible for what appears to be an sse interpretation in (44a). The same reasoning applies to the interpretations of (44b) and (44c). We can control for at least one of these factors to see if there is a real sse interpretation or, as I suggest, only an apparent sse interpretation; we can control for the type of action expressed by the verb. If we use a verb that expresses an action that cannot be repeated on the same object over and over, the apparent sse interpretation should disappear, if there is no real sse interpretation. The verbs that are relevant for the task head standard accomplishments. Consider them with bp external arguments in (45). (45) a. b. c.

Guys drank a bottle of wine (in ten minutes) #for an hour straight. Girls ate a slice of pizza (in ten minutes) #for an hour straight. Kids built a bicycle (in an hour) #for a week straight.



Chapter 2.  The syntax of eventives 1: An aspectual projection 

If the bp external argument were the source of the supposed sse interpretation from the sentences in (44), then we would expect that the sse interpretation would be available for these predicates as well. Moreover, this sse interpretation should license the durative phrase, in the same way that bp internal arguments license the durative phrase with these same predicates, as noted above in (39). However, this is not the case; the durative is simply incompatible independently of the presence of the time span adverbial. Moreover, it is not the case that (45a) means that one guy drank a bottle of wine (in 10 minutes), then another guy drank a bottle of wine (in 10 minutes), and so on for an hour. There is no sse interpretation in (45b) or (45c) either. bp external arguments do not elicit an sse interpretation of a predicate. bp external arguments do not contribute to the aspectual interpretation of the predicate.33 2.2.1.1  The contribution of the bare plural to the sequence of similar events interpretation.  Recall that the sse interpretation is a sequence of similar events. That is, an event interpreted as telic occurs over and over an indefinite number of times and the object undergoing the action expressed by the verb is a distinct object in each of the iterated subevents, although the same type of object. Thus, for an sse interpretation, a telic event is required, an indefinite number of repetitions of subevents is required and an indefinite number of objects participating in the iterated subevents is required. We will see that the contribution of a bp to the sse interpretation is that of introducing an indefinite number of objects on which the action expressed by the verb can take place. The aspectual interpretation of a predicate, as observed above, depends in part on the nature of the internal argument for some predicates. There are predicates (i.e., transitive activities), however, in which the nature of the internal argument does not affect the aspectual interpretation of the predicate:34 (46) a. The farmer dragged wood/the log b. The kid pushed the stereo/equipment c. The girl drove the car/farm equipment

for an hour. for an hour. for an hour.

Regardless of the [q] feature of the internal argument np, the predicate is interpreted as describing an atelic event; no sie interpretation is available as expected.

.  Tenny (1987: 176–177) discusses examples such as Children drew a circle (each). She observes that there is a distributive interpretation in which there are multiple events of circle drawing. She claims that in this way the bp affects the delimitedness (i.e., the (a)telicity) of a sentence. In section 2.2.1.2 below I contrast other multiple events interpretation with the sse interpretation and argue that they do not have the same aspectual effect that the sse interpretation has. .  Transitive activities are discussed in more detail in chapter three.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

When a bp internal argument is present with these predicates, no sse interpretation is available either, as illustrated in (47). (47) a. The farmer dragged logs b. The kid pushed stereos c. The girl drove cars

for an hour. for an hour. for an hour.

A mn interpretation is available for each of the bps in (47). For example, an interpretation in which one of the objects denoted by the bp undergoes the action throughout the hour, or an interpretation in which multiple objects undergo the same action, as well as an interpretation in which a group of the objects denoted by the bp undergoes the action expressed by the verb. If the sse interpretation were available, we would expect that the time span adverbial in combination with the durative phrase would be licit. However, this is not the case, as illustrated in (48). (48) a. b. c.

The farmer dragged logs #in ten minutes for an hour straight. The kid pushed stereos #in ten minutes for an hour straight. The girl drove cars #in ten minutes for an hour straight.

An sse interpretation requires a telic predicate. This entails that a bp must be [+q] in order to value Asp so that the predicate is telic; if the bp were [–q], then the predicate would be atelic and no sse interpretation would result. Another part of the sse interpretation is the indefinite number of repetitions of the telic event. This seems to be the contribution of the durative phrase alone. For as noted above in section 1, the durative phrase forces the event to continue for the amount of time it specifies, such that if a predicate is telic, it repeats an indefinite number of times. The relevant data are repeated below in (49). (49) a. The farmer dragged the log into the barn   for an hour. b. The girl carried the puppy into the office   for an hour. c. The man spotted the plane   for an hour.

The telicity of the predicate is determined by the predicate (and the internal argument) in question. The indefinite number of repetitions results from the durative forcing the telic event to continue for the amount of time it specifies. The contribution of the bp to the sse interpretation is the introduction of an indefinite number of objects that can participate in each of the iterated subevents. 2.2.1.2  The sequence of similar events and other multiple events interpretations. In this section I compare the SEE interpretation with two other types of multiple events interpretations and consider their respective aspectual relevance; specifically, I look at distributive interpretations and habitual interpretations. I argue that although these are also multiple events interpretations, they have different effects



Chapter 2.  The syntax of eventives 1: An aspectual projection 

on the predicate than the sse interpretation. Consequently, they are distinct multiple event interpretations. Consider a distributive interpretation first, in (50). (50) a. Each guy drank a bottle of wine. b. Every woman ate a fresh peach.

Clearly there are multiple events elicited in the presence of these quantifiers. In fact, there is an indefinite number of multiple events, as there are an indefinite number of pairings between guys and bottles of wine in (50a), and between women and fresh peaches in (50b). However, even though there is a multiple events interpretation, the durative phrase is still incompatible with these predicates, as illustrated in (51). (51) a. Each guy drank a bottle of wine   #for an hour. b. Every woman ate a fresh peach   #for an hour.

The only interpretation of (51a) with the durative is that some guy drank a bottle of wine for an hour, and there were several of these hour long bottle of wine drinking events by a different guy in each event. There is no interpretation in which some guy drank a bottle of wine, then some distinct guy drank a bottle of wine and then some other guy and so on for an hour. The durative is interpreted within the scope of the distributive operator. A parallel interpretation is found in (51b). On the sse interpretation, the inverse relation holds between the durative and the multiple events; the multiple events are interpreted inside the scope of the durative. Consider a habitual interpretation, by considering an example from Dowty (1979: 63) that appears to be a counterexample to the conclusion that bp external arguments do not elicit an sse interpretation: (52) Tourists discovered that quaint little village for years.35

This is an interesting example because part of the lexical meaning of discover is that once you discover something, under normal pragmatic circumstances, it cannot be discovered again. As has been previously noted, the durative phrase is typically incompatible with these predicates, unless, as we have seen, a bp or mn internal argument is present. In (52), there is a bp external argument and one might take it to be responsible for the compatibility of the durative. Nevertheless, I claim that because the durative expresses a longer period of time, a habitual interpretation results, and that under a habitual interpretation, the aspectual properties of a predicate are distinct. Compare the sentences in (53). (53) a. John ate an apple for breakfast   #for an hour. b. John ate an apple for breakfast   for years.

.  Discover is a verb that patterns with psych-achievements. The subjects of psych-achievements are experiencers and arguably derived from a position below Asp. See chapter seven, section 3 for an analysis along these lines.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

The durative in (53a) expresses an amount of time that favors a non-habitual single breakfast-eating event interpretation. And as we have seen, in these cases, the durative phrase is not licensed; on the one hand, because of the nature of the action expressed by the verb, and, on the other, because the same object must undergo this action more than once. In contrast, in (53b) the durative expresses a longer amount of time which favors a habitual interpretation of breakfast-eating events. The durative is perfectly fine here. Moreover, it is not the case that there is a single apple that undergoes the action in each of these multiple breakfast-eating events; there are multiple apples corresponding to multiple breakfast-eating events (one apple per event). I assume something similar is happening in the sentence from (52); the habitual interpretation is affecting the “standard” aspectual properties of the predicate. Consequently, the multiple events interpretation associated with a habitual interpretation cannot be taken to be the same phenomenon as the sse (or sie) interpretation.36 The sse interpretation is an independent multiple events interpretation. 2.2.2 Bare plural movement to Spec, AspP: Eliciting the sequence of similar events interpretation I claim that the sse interpretation results from bp movement to Spec, AspP. For the sentence in (54a), I propose the structure in (54b), and for the sentence in (55a), I propose the structure in (55b). (54) a.

A kid dragged logs into a barn. vP

b.

v′

DP a kid

v

AspP Asp′ Asp





VP DP logs

V′ PP

V drag P into

DP a barn

.  Ramchand (2004: 8) assumes that habituality operators fall outside the domain of inner aspect.



Chapter 2.  The syntax of eventives 1: An aspectual projection 

(55) a. b.

A kid dragged the log into barns. vP v′

DP a kid

v

AspP Asp′ Asp

VP DP the log

V′ V drag

PP P into





DP barns

The dashed arrows represent the movement relation established between the bps and Spec, AspP. Given the nature of movement, we can explain the aspectual distribution of bps straightforwardly; as long as a bp is c-commanded by Asp it can move into Spec, AspP, unless it is blocked for some independent reason, such as an island. Consider what seems to be an island for bp movement in (56). (56) a. b. c.

John smoked a box of cigars (in ten seconds) #for ten hours straight. John destroyed a row of houses (in thirty minutes) #for twenty hours straight. John wrote a book of poems (in ten minutes) #for ten hours straight.

No sse interpretation is elicited in (56). That is, (56a) does not mean that John smoked one cigar in ten seconds, then another in ten seconds and so on for ten hours straight. Likewise, (56b) does not mean that John destroyed one house in thirty minutes, then another house in thirty minutes, and so on for twenty hours straight. The same goes for (56c). The durative phrase is incompatible independently of the presence of the time span adverbial. These facts can be straightforwardly explained if we assume that bps must move to Spec, AspP to elicit the sse interpretation and that the complex nps in (56) do not allow this movement, because they are islands for bp movement.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

Additionally, I assume that bps are quantificational when they induce an sse interpretation. They introduce existential quantification and must move above AspP to bind a variable inside the domain of aspectual interpretation.37 The domain of aspectual interpretation is a syntactic domain determined by AspP, the motivation for which I provide in the next section. 3.  The domain of aspectual interpretation In this section I argue for a syntactic generalization of inner aspect. I claim that for an element to contribute to the aspectual interpretation of a predicate it must be within a domain of aspectual interpretation defined by AspP and everything contained by AspP. We have already seen several elements structurally lower than AspP that can contribute to aspectual interpretation; here I consider elements structurally higher. I present three pieces of evidence that suggest that if an element is structurally higher than AspP it cannot contribute to the aspectual interpretation of a predicate: 1. The lack of aspectual contribution of cause, which introduces an external argument causer; 2. The lack of aspectual contribution of external arguments; and 3. The lack of aspectual contribution of location prepositional phrases. Let us consider cause first. Hay, Kennedy, & Levin (1999: 132) observe that cause is outside the aspectual representation of the predicate, based on causative-inchoative alternations. The inchoative form of some causative-inchoative pairs varies aspectually between a telic and an atelic interpretation.38 Evidence for this aspectual alternation comes from the compatibility of both the durative phrase and the time span adverbial, as illustrated in (57).39 (57) a. The soup cooled b. The kingdom expanded

for an hour/in an hour. for a week/in a week.

.  Carlson (1977: 451) referring to the indefinite plural interpretation of bps notes that they do have “an existential quantifier associated with it”. He states that “the existential quantifier itself will have constant scope, and in fact will have ‘narrowest’ scope.” The narrow scope interpretation of bps falls out from movement to Spec, AspP. .  The variation is often assumed to be between an achievement and an activity interpretation, i.e., Dowty’s (1979) degree achievements. Although, Hay, Kennedy, & Levin (1999: 127 n.1) claim that the variation is between an activity and accomplishment interpretation. I assume that the variation is between an achievement and an activity interpretation. See chapter six, section 3.1.1 for more details. .  The time span adverbial expresses the amount of time before the event begins, before the soup is considered cooled in (57a) and before the kingdom is considered expanded in (57b).



Chapter 2.  The syntax of eventives 1: An aspectual projection 

Observe that when the external argument (i.e., the causer) is added to these sentences, there is no change in the aspectual variability of these predicates. Both the durative phrase and the time span adverbial are still compatible with no change in aspectual interpretation, as shown in (58). (58) a. Neal cooled the soup b. Neal expanded the kingdom

for an hour/in an hour. for an hour/in an hour.

Hay, Kennedy & Levin (1999) rightly conclude from this that the (a)telicity of these predicates does not depend on the presence of the external argument causer, as these predicates can still receive a telic or an atelic interpretation in the presence of the external argument. Note that cause is structurally higher than AspP, as illustrated in (59). ...CP

(59) DP

′ AspP

 Asp





VP V

DP

Let us return to external arguments again. Recall the bp-mn external argument facts from above. The conclusion was that neither bp nor mn external arguments contributed to the aspectual interpretation of the predicate. They can only contribute as internal arguments. If this is true, then we expect that only derived subjects can affect the aspectual interpretation of the predicate. Consider the subjects of unaccusatives below in (60) to (62). (60) a. The boy arrived b. The girl escaped

for an hour. for an hour.

(61) a. Kegs of beer arrived b. Animals escaped

for an hour. for an hour.

(62) a. Beer arrived b. Wildlife escaped

for an hour. for an hour.

When the derived subject is a [+q]np, as in (60), the durative phrase elicits an sie interpretation. When the derived subject is a bp, an sse interpretation results,

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

as in (61). When the derived subject is a mn, there is an atelic interpretation, as in (62). Derived subjects of passives show the same patterns as derived subjects of unaccusatives, as illustrated in (63) to (65).40 (63) a. The bottle of beer was drunk b. The car was built

#for an hour. #for an hour.

(64) a. Bottles of beer were drunk b. Stereos were built

for an hour. for an hour.

(65) a. Beer was drunk b. Stereo equipment was built

for an hour. for an hour.

When the derived subject is a [+q]np, as in (63), the durative is incompatible because of the nature of the type of event expressed by these verbs. When the derived subject is a bp, as in (64), an sse interpretation of the predicate results. When the derived subject is a mn, as in (65), there is an atelic interpretation of the predicate. Moreover, observe that there is an asymmetry between internal and external argument WH-words. Consider first the internal arguments in (66) and (67). (66) a. What did the raccoon eat ___   for an hour/in an hour. b. What did the robot build ___   for an hour/in an hour. (67) a. What did wildlife eat ___   for an hour/in an hour. b. What did computer equipment build ___   for an hour/in an hour.

The WH-word can be specified as either [+q] or [–q].41 For this reason both the durative phrase and the time span adverbial are compatible regardless of whether the external argument is [+q], as in (66), or [–q], as in (67). Consider the WHexternal arguments in (68) and (69). (68) a. What ___ ate a pile of trash b. What ___ built the bicycle

#for an hour/in an hour. #for an hour/in an hour.

.  Essentially what we see with passives is that if the transitive counterpart is an accomplishment or achievement, the passive counterpart is an accomplishment or achievement respectively, with the direct object of the transitive playing the same aspectual role as the subject of the passive. Note that these facts are particularly difficult for an account of the syntax of aspect that takes case and aspect to be intimately related. See chapter six, section 2.1 for arguments against taking aspect and case to be directly related syntactically. .  Note that another logical possibility is that a WH-word is not specified as either [+q] nor [–q]. This seems unlikely, for this would entail that Asp is not valued, always resulting in an atelic interpretation (by parallel with unergative verbs which are atelic, arguably due to the lack of internal argument). See chapter three, section 3.1 for more discussion. However, the presence of a WH-word does not always result in an atelic predicate.



Chapter 2.  The syntax of eventives 1: An aspectual projection 

(69) a. What ___ ate trash b. What ___ built stereo equipment

for an hour/#in an hour. for an hour/#in an hour.

The time span is only compatible when the internal argument is [–q], as in (68), and the durative is only compatible when the internal argument is [+q], as in (69). These facts simply reinforce the previous conclusions that external arguments do not contribute to the aspectual interpretation of the predicate. External arguments are structurally higher than AspP, as illustrated in (70). ...vP

(70) DP

v′

external v argument

AspP Asp



VP V



DP

Finally, let us consider location PPs. Observe that their presence does not affect the aspectual interpretation of the predicate, as illustrated in (71). (71) a. John drove the car (at the park) b. John pushed the cart (in the hall)

for an hour. for an hour.

The predicates in (71) are atelic independently of the presence of the location pp. This contrasts with goal PPs, which as noted above, can contribute to the aspectual interpretation of the predicate, as repeated below in (72). (72) a. John drove the car to the park b. John pushed the cart into the hall

for an hour. for an hour.

The only interpretation available in the presence of the goal phrase is an iterative interpretation. In English, goal PPs can elicit a telic interpretation of a predicate that is otherwise atelic. This has been widely observed (see, for example, Borer 2005: 208; Dowty 1979: 60; Pustejovsky 1991: 49; among others). Consider another divergence in behavior between goal and location PPs that points to a structural difference. Goal PPs are ungrammatical in do so constructions, illustrated in (73a), and location PPs are grammatical, illustrated in (73b). (73) a. b.

??John

pushed the cart into the hall and Frank did so into the store. John pushed the cart in the hallway and Frank did so in the store.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

These do so facts suggest that location PPs are adjoined to vp while goal PPs are lower in the verb phrase. This entails that location PPs are structurally higher than AspP, as illustrated in (74), while goal PPs are lower. (74)

...vP vP

PP v′

DP v

at the park AspP

Asp





VP V

DP

The aspectual difference between location PPs and goal PPs appears to fall out from their structural differences. If so, it suggests a straightforward approach to the two-way ambiguous goal-location prepositional phrases of English shown in (75). (75) a. John drove the car under the bridge. b. John pushed the cart outside the store.

The PPs in (75) are ambiguous between a goal and location interpretation, and they are ambiguous with respect to their aspectual contribution. Consider the interpretations in (76) in the presence of a durative phrase. (76) a. John drove the car under the bridge b. John pushed the cart outside the store

for an hour. for an hour.

On a goal reading, an iterative interpretation results from the presence of a durative phrase in which John was repeatedly driving from a location not under the bridge to location under the bridge, as in (76a). On a location reading only an atelic interpretation results in which John was driving underneath the bridge throughout the entire hour, as in (76a). Parallel aspectual interpretations are present in similar contexts for the sentence in (76b). Moreover, note that in the presence of a time span adverbial, a telic interpretation is preferred over an atelic interpretation, as illustrated in (77). (77) a. John drove the car under the bridge b. John pushed the cart outside the store

in ten minutes. in ten minutes.



Chapter 2.  The syntax of eventives 1: An aspectual projection 

On the telic interpretation in the presence of the time span adverbial, the PPs are interpreted as goal PPs. Note that in do-so constructions, the location interpretation is favored, as illustrated in (78). (78) a. b.

John drove the car under a bridge, and Frank did so under an awning. John pushed the cart outside the store and Frank did so outside the church.

These facts show that on a location interpretation, these ambiguous PPs behave like unambiguous location PPs, and on a goal interpretation they behave like unambiguous goal PPs. That is, when interpreted as locations, the PPs do not contribute to the aspectual interpretation of the predicate, but when interpreted as goal PPs, they do. Assuming a domain of aspectual interpretation together with different structural positions for these PPs offers a simple syntactic account of their two-way ambiguity. Goal PPs can affect the aspectual interpretation of the predicate because they merge within the domain of aspectual interpretation and location PPs cannot affect the aspectual interpretation of a predicate, because they merge outside the domain of aspectual interpretation. Furthermore, we might assume that the goal interpretation of the pp results from merging low in the structure, and the location interpretation results from adjoining high in the structure. The two-way ambiguity of these PPs arguably has a structural source. A similar account has been proposed for Norwegian ambiguous goal-location PPs by Tungseth (2005). Tungseth observes that the Norwegian PPs in (79) are ambiguous between a location interpretation and a goal interpretation.42 (79) a. b. c.

Jon syklet i grøfta. Jon biked in ditch-def Hans kastet ballen i stua. Hans threw ball-def in living room-def Spionen gikk på taket. Spy-def walked on roof-def

Not only are the PPs ambiguous between a location interpretation and a goal interpretation, on the location interpretation the predicate is atelic and on the goal interpretation the predicate is telic. Moreover, Tungseth (2005) shows through a variety of tests that location PPs are adjoined to vp while goal PPs merge as complements of the verb. The facts in Norwegian are parallel to those in English. Based on these facts, Tungseth (2005: 160–161) claims that the properties corresponding to the goal interpretation fall out from being a complement of the verb, and the

.  These data are taken as is from Tungseth (2005: 147).

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

properties corresponding to the location interpretation fall out from adjoining to vp, very much in the same spirit of the proposal here.43 The Norwegian and the English facts together suggest that the aspectual interpretation of the ambiguous goal-location PPs is a result of its syntactic position. If so, these data lend more support to a syntactic generalization of aspect that is forming: anything above AspP is outside the domain of aspectual interpretation. The lack of aspectual contribution by the cause head, external arguments, and location prepositional phrases can be explained under a single assumption which is that they are structurally higher than AspP; being above AspP they cannot contribute to the aspectual interpretation of the predicate. In fact, more specifically I claim that there is a domain of aspectual interpretation such that for an element to contribute to the aspectual interpretation of the predicate, it must be within this domain. This domain is determined by AspP.44

4.  From chapter two to chapter three I have argued for an aspectual projection between vP and vp that is the source of three distinct properties: 1. Agree with Asp syntactically instantiates the ote mapping; 2. bps elicit an sse interpretation by moving to Spec, AspP; and 3. AspP defines a syntactic space that an element must appear within in order to contribute to the aspectual interpretation of the predicate; this is the domain of aspectual interpretation. A conclusion drawn from chapter one was that the ote mapping is independent of the es of a predicate. Here we have seen that the ote mapping is a relation with AspP. In chapter three, I argue that we can account for the es properties of a predicate with interpretable event features. The independence of the ote mapping and es lends itself to distinct mechanisms underlying each.

.  Tungseth (2005: 148–149) argues that these PPs are complements of a functional projection which bears an uninterpretable feature. When this FP is below the verb there is a directionality interpretable feature of the verb that values the uninterpretable feature on the FP, such that the pp is interpreted as directional. .  In chapter three, section 3 we see that the Agree relation with Asp affects the extent of the domain of aspectual interpretation.

chapter 3

The syntax of eventives 2 Event features Event structure is the domain of inner aspect. Following Smith (1991), the abstract structure of a real world event can be schematically represented as in (1). The capital letters refer to endpoints and the dots to stages.1

(1) … I … F…

The schema in (1) does not refer to any particular real world event, but represents a complete inventory of the elements that could make one up. One important task in the study of inner aspect is to determine which parts of an event are grammaticalized (Tenny & Pustejovsky 2000: 4).2 There have been several proposals. Pustejovsky (1991: 59), for example, proposes that an accomplishment consists of an initial process subevent connected via a transition to a resultant state subevent. In a sense, the initial process consists of the beginning of the event plus some amount of duration, followed by the end of the event with a resultant state. This ­essentially correspond to I… F… in (1). Ramchand (2003: 19), assumes that the initiation, process and resultant state of an event are grammaticalized, although only the process portion is obligatorily present in a dynamic event. This process portion corresponds essentially to the stages between I and F in (1). Ritter & Rosen (1998: 149) argue that the originator of an event and the delimiter of an event are grammaticalized. Although these are roles assigned to DPs, this essentially corresponds to the I and F from (1). These investigators have focused on different parts of the event schema from (1), assuming that different portions are grammaticalized and varying with respect to whether these grammaticalized ­portions are part of the lexicon, syntax, or semantics.

.  Smith (1991: 13) refers to this as the “temporal structure of situations”. She assumes the distinction between inner and out aspect, referring to them respectively as situation and viewpoint aspect. .  Another equally important task is to determine how to represent the grammaticalized parts of an event. Often functional projections are employed, as illustrated in chapter one, section 3. Below and in chapter four, I justify using interpretable features to represent es.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

I argue that the relevant grammaticalized portions of es are the beginning and the end of the event, i.e., the I and F from (1). I argue that these portions are grammaticalized as interpretable event features. Like other interpretable features, i.e., φ-features, they are elements of the lexicon, they are visible to syntactic operations and they contribute to interpretation. I assume that event features enter narrow syntax on heads and project.3 When a predicate describes an event interpreted as having a beginning, an 〈ie〉 feature is present, and when a predicate describes an event interpreted as having an end, an 〈 fe〉 feature is present.4 Via event features the structure of an event is grammaticalized. I argue below that event features are found in English, and in chapter five, I argue that they are found in Russian. In fact, I claim that es is a universal property of inner aspect. That is, event features are universal properties.5 I understand this to entail that ultimately es is the only determinant of the aspectual class of a predicate. Specifically within the system developed here, the number of event features in a predicate and the relation between them determine whether a predicate is an activity, an accomplishment, an achievement, or a stative. Activities have only an 〈ie〉 feature; they describe events as having only a beginning. Accomplishments and achievements, on the other hand, have both an 〈ie〉 and 〈 fe〉 feature; they describe events as having a beginning and an end. Statives have no event features and consequently no es.6 Only predicates with both an 〈ie〉 and an 〈 fe〉 feature are telic; that is, only predicates that describe events with a beginning and an end are telic. Moreover, if a c-command relation holds between 〈ie〉 and 〈 fe〉, then time is interpreted to elapse between the beginning and the end of the event described by the predicate. If no c-command relation holds, then, time is not interpreted to

.  Tenny (1987: 211), entertaining different syntactic instantiations of aspect, notes the possibility that we can treat delimitedness syntactically as features on the verb that percolate up the projection. I assume that event features behave in this way. .  〈ie〉 and 〈 fe〉 here are intended to refer to the initial subevent and the final subevent, although I do not assume that they represent subevents in the sense of Pustejovsky (1991). They do represent subevent structure by representing the beginning and end of an event. .  Considering that es and the ote mapping are independent properties (see chapter one, section 2), and taking into account that the ote mapping is a relation with Asp (see chapter two, section 2.1), if, in fact, event features are universal properties, we would expect that AspP is a variant property of inner aspect. I argue precisely this in chapter five. .  The discussion of stative predicates is distributed between the present chapter, section 1, and chapter five, sections 1 and 2.



Chapter 3.  The syntax of eventives 2: Event features 

elapse between the beginning and the end of the event. This derives the differences between accomplishments and achievements. Assuming that the mapping to CI is uniform, i.e., universal (Chomsky 2004: 107, 2007: 12 n.17), the nature of event features can inform us about the conditions that the CI interface places on syntax, since event features are universal pro­perties and syntax must create expressions conforming to these interface conditions (Chomsky 2000: 94–95, 2004: 110, 2005: 8). Interpretable features are legible to the CI interface, by definition. Event features are interpretable features, and therefore legible to the CI interface. Moreover, c-command, which is minimally necessary for operator variable relations (Chomsky 2007: 9, 17), is legible to the CI interface as well. The c-command relation between event features falls out from external merge, with no other stipulations necessary. Event features enter the syntax on heads that are put together by external merge. External merge hierarchically structures these heads such that an event feature entering the derivation earlier than another will by definition c-command an event feature entering later. Since event features are interpretable features, they are legible by the CI interface, and since external merge provides a structure that the CI interface interprets (Chomsky 2004: 110, 2005: 7, 2007: 12), the c-command relation between these event features is legible as well. A study of the syntactic nature of inner aspect makes these minimal conditions on the legibility of elements at the CI interface, and by extension, on universal properties of language, salient. This chapter is organized as follows. In section 1, I focus on es properties and provide evidence for the grammaticalization of the beginning and end of an event. The evidence comes in part from the interpretation of es modifiers, i.e., almost and the it takes x-time construction, and in part from entailments resulting from the interaction of es and tense. In section 2, I propose the formal apparatus. I argue for the existence of event features and discuss how they account for the different eventive predicates. In section 3, I explore the interaction between the ote mapping and es. This reduces to the interaction between the domain of aspectual interpretation and the interpretation of event features. In 3.1 I argue that the ote mapping affects the extent of the domain of aspectual interpretation which in turn determines whether an event feature falls within the domain or not, and consequently whether it contributes subevent structure or not. In 3.2 we see that, although there is a domain of aspectual interpretation determined by AspP, elements that contribute to aspectual interpretation are not calculated until the vp phase, until Transfer to CI. In section 3.3, I provide explicit derivations of different aspectual predicate types to see precisely how the different mechanisms involved in English inner aspect interact. Finally, in section 4, I conclude by noting where the conclusions drawn in this chapter naturally lead.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

1.  Event structure 1.1  Event structure modifiers I argue here that almost is an es modifier. That is, it can target and modify the beginning and the end of the event described by a predicate. When almost modifies the beginning of the event, the result is a counterfactual interpretation7 in which the event almost begins. When almost modifies the end of the event, the result is an incompletive interpretation in which the event begins and almost ends. Recall that we saw in chapter one, section 3.1 that when it takes x-time modifies the beginning of the event the result is a start-time interpretation in which the amount of time that elapses before the event begins is expressed. When it takes x-time modifies the end of the event, the result is an end-time interpretation in which the amount of time that elapses before the event ends is expressed.8 Since, as I assume, almost and it takes x-time are both es modifiers, we expect that whenever a counterfactual interpretation is available, a start-time interpretation is available, and whenever an incompletive interpretation is available, an end-time interpretation is available. 1.1.1  Accomplishments, activities, statives and event structure modifiers Consider standard accomplishments again in the it takes x-time construction below in (2). (2) a. It took Phil ten minutes to drink the pitcher of beer. b. It took Sal ten minutes to eat the slice of pizza.

Recall that both a start-time and an end-time interpretation are available. The starttime interpretation of (2a) is that after ten minutes passed Phil began to drink the pitcher of beer; the end-time interpretation of (2a) is that after ten minutes passed, the pitcher of beer was completely drunk, the event came to an end. Given these two interpretations, we expect a counterfactual and incompletive interpretation elicited by almost as well. Consider the interpretation of almost in (3).9 (3) a. Phil almost drank the pitcher of beer. b. Sal almost ate the slice of pizza.

.  The term counterfactual is adopted from Rapp & von Stechow (1999). .  The time-span adverbial elicits the same aspectual interpretation as it takes x-time (Dowty 1979: 58–59). In discussing English, I use primarily it takes x-time, although I assume the same interpretation and formal account for the time span adverbial. .  The observations regarding the ambiguity of almost with accomplishments and the lack of ambiguity with activities and achievements come from Dowty (1979: 60).



Chapter 3.  The syntax of eventives 2: Event features 

Both a counterfactual interpretation and an incompletive interpretation are available for the sentences in (3). The counterfactual interpretation of (3a) is that Phil almost began to drink the pitcher of beer; the incompletive interpretation of (3a) is that Phil began to drink the pitcher of beer and almost finished it, but crucially did not. Almost has both interpretations in (3b) as well. Before continuing the discussion of almost (and the it takes x-time construction), it is worth noting a possible argument against the ambiguity argued to be present when almost appears with accomplishments. Tenny (2000) argues that the apparent ambiguity is the result of a myriad of interpretations made available by the vagueness of almost. She observes that with predicates without core events (i.e., predicates that are not accomplishments) almost seems to show multiple interpretations as well. Tenny (2000: 314) states that “we might understand Bob almost kicked the wall to be ambiguous between Bob’s getting ready to kick the wall, but abandoning the project, and Bob’s starting to kick the wall but not quite connecting or reaching it.” She concludes that almost is not scopally ambiguous, but simply vague. I agree with her judgments and analysis for this particular example. I believe that what she observes is that almost is vague on a counterfactual interpretation. In fact, it seems that all counterfactual interpretations are vague like this, whether almost appears with predicates without core events or with predicates with core events. Consider John drank beer and John drank a pitcher of beer. The former is atelic and the latter is telic. Consider a range of ways that we can imagine that John came close to drinking beer that are compatible with the interpretation of the sentence John almost drank beer: 1. He thought he would go to the bar to order a pitcher, but instead decided to sit still on his couch; 2. He went to the bar, was about to order a pitcher of beer, but decided to order a bottle of wine instead; 3. He went to the bar, ordered a pitcher of beer, poured a glass, but then got an important phone call and left. Crucially, all of these situations share a common element: the beer-drinking event never actually began, it almost began. These are vague interpretations resulting from the availability of a counterfactual interpretation with atelic predicates. Given that telic predicates also have a counterfactual interpretation available, we expect to find the same range of vague interpretations in a sentence like John almost drank a pitcher of beer, and we do find them. Crucially, however, since the latter sentence is telic and expresses that there is an end to the event, there is one interpretation available for it that is not available for John almost drank beer. This is an incompletive interpretation in which, the event of beer drinking began, and almost ended. More concretely in a situation in which John takes up a pitcher of beer and starts to drink from it, the sentence John almost drank beer is not felicitous, precisely because he started to drink beer. Crucially, however, John almost drank a pitcher of beer is felicitous (as long as the amount drunk pragmatically corresponds to “almost finished”). This is the ambiguity that this event structure modifier is sensitive to.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

Now, since there are two interpretations that almost elicits with standard accomplishments, I assume that standard accomplishments describe events that have both a beginning and an end. We expect the same set of interpretations with pp-accomplishments, since they are accomplishments. Consider pp-accomplishments in the it takes x-time construction in (4) and with almost in (5). (4) a. It took the builder an hour to drag the 10ft.2x4 into the shed. b. It took the kid an hour to push the sofa into the garage. c. It took the girl an hour to carry the ladder into the bedroom. (5) a. The builder almost dragged the 10ft.2x4 into the shed. b. The kid almost pushed the sofa into the garage. c. The girl almost carried the ladder into the bedroom.

As expected both a start-time and an end-time interpretation are available for the pp-accomplishments in (4). On the start-time interpretation of (4a), only after an hour passed did some part of the 2x4 enter the shed; only after an hour did the event begin. On the end-time interpretation of (4a), only after an hour passed did the entire 2x4 enter the shed; only after an hour passed did the event end. Similar interpretations are available for (4b) and (4c). As expected, both a counterfactual and an incompletive interpretation are available for the ppaccomplishments in (5). On the counterfactual interpretation of (5a), the event of dragging the 10ft.2x4 into the shed almost began. This entails that no part of the 2x4 entered the shed. The builder could have begun dragging the 2x4 toward the shed, away from the shed, or just have thought about dragging the 2x4 into the shed, but no part of the 2x4 enters the shed on a counterfactual interpretation. On the incompletive interpretation of (5a), some part of the 2x4 began to enter the shed, but crucially, not all of it. It almost entered in its entirety; the event almost ended. Similar counterfactual and incompletive interpretations are available for (5b) and (5c) as well. Both es modifiers can modify the beginning and the end of the events described by pp-accomplishments, as expected. I conclude that, like standard accomplishments, pp-accomplishments describe events that have both a beginning and an end. Now let us consider one class of atelic predicates: transitive activities. We can derive these predicates from the pp-accomplishments above by simply removing the goal pp. The result is a change in es, (from (telic) accomplishment to (atelic) activity), and the systematic elimination of both the end-time interpretation of it takes x-time and the incompletive interpretation of almost. First observe again that these transitive activities are atelic, illustrated in (6). (6) a. The builder dragged the 10ft.2x4 b. The kid pushed the sofa c. The girl carried the ladder

for an hour. for an hour. for an hour.



Chapter 3.  The syntax of eventives 2: Event features 

There is no goal pp, and there is no telic interpretation. Now observe below in (7) and (8) respectively that there is no end-time or incompletive interpretation either. (7) a. It took the builder an hour to drag the 10ft.2x4. b. It took the kid an hour to push the sofa. c. It took the girl an hour to carry the ladder. (8) a. b. c.

The builder almost dragged the 10ft.2x4 (but he carried it instead). The kid almost pushed the sofa (but he put it on a cart instead). The girl almost carried the ladder (but she let the boy do it).

In (7a), only a start-time interpretation is available in which an hour passed before any 10ft.2x4 dragging began. In (8a) only a counterfactual interpretation is available in which no 10ft.2x4 dragging began at all; the event almost began. The same goes for the sentences in (7b), (7c), (8b) and (8c). Note the systematic pairing of interpretations between the incompletive interpretation and the end-time interpretation. That is, where there is no incompletive interpretation, there is no end-time interpretation; we do not find an incompletive interpretation in the same predicate in which we do not find an end-time interpretation. Likewise, we will not find a counterfactual interpretation in the same predicate in which we do not find a start-time interpretation. This is expected if these es modifiers modify the same portions of the event, as argued here. In the case of transitive activities, the only portion available for modification is the beginning of the event. Note that we find the same patterns with intransitive activities as illustrated in (9) and (10), as we expect. (9) a. It took John ten minutes to laugh. b. It took Jill ten minutes to yell. (10) a. John almost laughed. b. Jill almost yelled.

Finally, consider the interpretation of it takes x-time and almost with the stative predicates in (10) and (11) respectively. (11) a. *It took the man a year to love a woman. b. *It took the woman a year to own a car. (12) a. The girl (*almost) loved a dog (#but she loved a cat instead). b. The man (*almost) owned a bike (#but he owned a scooter instead).

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

With stative predicates, it takes x-time does not elicit a start-time or an end-time interpretation;10 likewise, almost does not elicit a counterfactual or an incompletive interpretation.11 Given that there is no clear counterfactual/incompletive or start-/end-time interpretation available, I conclude that stative predicates describe events that do not have a beginning or an end.12 I conclude from this discussion that (pp-)accomplishments describe events that have a beginning and an end, activities describe events that have only a beginning, and statives describe events that lack both a beginning and an end. I discuss achievements in section 1.3 below. Let us first see how accomplishments, activities and statives interact with past and future tense. 1.2  Event structure and tense entailments Following Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria (2000, 2004),13 I assume that Tense and Aspect relate two times.14 Tense relates the time of utterance to the assertion (reference) time, and Aspect relates the assertion time to the time at which the event/ state takes place/holds (Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria (2004: 144)). They also claim that for English past and future simple tense, the assertion time coincides with the

.  There seems to be an interpretation here for the it takes x-time construction, however, I contend that it is not a relevant interpretation. In some contexts and/or constructions stative predicates seem to pattern with eventive predicates. This is most likely to due pragmatics. Take for instance the sentence in (11a). The interpretation that is available can be paraphrased in the following way: It took a year for some event to take place/for something to happen that gave rise to John being in the state of loving a woman. What is arguably being modified here is an implicit event that is present, arguably due to our knowledge of the way the world works, but not due to the stative directly. See the discussion surrounding examples (18) below. .  There may be some interpretation available for almost with certain statives: The bridge almost reaches to the other side. The chair and the table almost touch. (William McClure p.c.). Although note that these statives with it takes x-time are out all together. *It took the bridge ten minutes to reach the other side. *It took the chair and the table ten minutes to touch. Given that almost and it takes x-time diverge in these cases, I assume that whatever interpretation elicited by almost here is not the same interpretation under discussion. .  In chapter five, section 1, I discuss other systematic differences between statives and eventives related to the three properties surrounding AspP. We see that statives behave as if they lacked AspP altogether. .  Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria (2000, 2004) follow Klein (1995). .  To be clear, when Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria (2000, 2004) refer to Aspect here they are not referring to inner aspect. As we will see below, I take the event bounds that they refer to, which are ordered with respect to the assertion time, to correspond to the es of a predicate. Thus, in their system the relevant properties of inner aspect correspond to the event bounds.



Chapter 3.  The syntax of eventives 2: Event features 

event time “from its initial to its final boundary.” (Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria 2004: 151). Consequently, for past and future simple, Tense orders the utterance time (indirectly) with respect to the event time. Past tense orders the event time before the utterance time and future tense orders the event time after the utterance time. If this is correct, and if we can differentiate the es of accomplishments, activities and statives in the way argued above, then we might also expect a difference in the way in which accomplishments, activities and statives interact with past and future tense. In this section, I discuss this interaction. 1.2.1  Accomplishments, activities, statives and tense entailments Past tense orders the event time before the utterance time. Thus, for accomplishments which describe events as having an end, the end of the event would take place before the utterance time. In this case, we would not expect that the event could still take place at the utterance time. Consider the accomplishments in (13).15 (13) a. b. c.

John drank a bottle of wine last night. #In fact, he’s still drinking it now. John ate a chicken yesterday for lunch. #In fact, he’s still eating it now. John carried the bag into the bedroom yesterday. #In fact, he’s still carrying it into the bedroom now.

John cannot still be drinking a bottle of wine now, if there is an entailment that he finished it last night, as indicated in (13a). Likewise, John cannot still be eating a chicken now, if there is an entailment that he finished it yesterday, as indicated in (13b). And finally, John cannot be carrying the bag into the bedroom now, if he carried into the bedroom yesterday, as indicated in (13c).16 For accomplishments in past simple, there is an entailment that the event ends before the utterance time.

.  These and similar examples are based on examples and observations taken from Cappelle & Declerck (2005: 897 n.14). .  Note that under a multiple events interpretation, the second sentence of (13c) becomes felicitous; John carries the bag into the bedroom repeated times. Nevertheless, simple felicity is not the issue. The issue is whether the same (single) event can continue until and be taking place at the utterance time. If it can, then there is no end to the event. If it cannot, or if only a multiple events interpretation is possible, then there is an end to the event. It is crucial that the paired sentences in these and the following examples refer to the same event for the entailments, or lack thereof, to be relevant. Thanks to Safet Beriša for drawing my attention to this important fact.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

Activities contrast with accomplishments in that they do not describe events that have an end. In this case, we might expect that an activity in past simple, although it occurs before the utterance time, can still be interpreted felicitously as continuing to and taking place at the utterance time. Consider the activities in (14). (14) a. b. c.

John ran last night in the park. In fact, he’s still running there now. John drove the Harley last night. In fact, he’s still driving it now. John drank beer last night. In fact, he’s still drinking beer now.

There is no entailment that the end of the event takes place before the utterance time for activities, because activities do not describe events that have ends. Thus, both sentences in (14a) can be interpreted as referring to the same event. The same goes for (14b) and (14c). Like activities, statives lack an end. Consequently, we expect that they pattern with activities when in past simple; that is, there should be no entailment that the state expressed cannot hold at the utterance time. This is shown to be the case in (15). (15) a. b. c.

John had the flu yesterday. In fact, he still has it now. Jules was at home yesterday. In fact, he is still at home now. Jules owned the house yesterday. In fact, he still owns it now.

If future tense orders the utterance time before the event time, then we expect that accomplishments and activities, which both describe events as having a beginning, cannot be interpreted as taking place at the time of utterance, since the beginning of the event is ordered after the utterance time. In contrast, we expect that the state expressed by statives, in which there is no beginning expressed, can be interpreted as holding at the utterance time. Consider accomplishments in (16) first. (16) a. b. c.

John will drink the bottle of wine tomorrow night. #In fact, he’s drinking it now. John will eat the chicken tomorrow night. #In fact, he’s eating it now. John will carry the bag into the bedroom tomorrow night. #In fact, he’s carrying it into the bedroom now.17

.  On a multiple events interpretation (16c) improves, but see footnote 16.



Chapter 3.  The syntax of eventives 2: Event features 

The second sentence in (16a) cannot be interpreted as referring to the same event as the first sentence in (16a). The same goes for (16b) and (16c). Activities in future simple behave the same as accomplishments in future simple as shown in (17). (17) a. b. c.

John will run tomorrow night. #In fact, he’s running now. John will drive the Harley tomorrow night. #In fact, he’s driving it now. John will drink beer tomorrow night. #In fact, he’s drinking beer now.

Note that the second sentences here are only infelicitous under the interpretation that both in the pair refer to the same event, which is what we expect. Nevertheless, when interpreted as two separate events, the sentence in (17a), for example, can be interpreted felicitously in a situation in which John is running right now and then tomorrow will go for another run. Again, in this case, there would be two separate running events. This is not the relevant context nevertheless; the two sentences must refer to the same, single event. The same consideration goes for (17b) and (17c). Since statives lack beginnings, there is no reason why when the state they describe is located in the future, the state cannot hold at the time of utterance. Consider the statives in (18). (18) a. b. c.

John will have the flu tomorrow night. In fact, he has it now. John will be at home tomorrow night. In fact, he is at home now. John will own the house tomorrow night. ?In fact, he owns it now.

The second sentences in (18a) and (18b) are not infelicitous, as expected from statives, as they do not have beginnings. However, the second sentence from (18c) is unexpectedly infelicitous. Moreover, consider the following: John will know his admirer’s identity tomorrow night. #In fact, he knows it now. What seems to be present with some statives in certain contexts is an implicit event that takes place which gives rise to the state introduced by the stative verb. That is, John will know his admirer’s identity tomorrow night. can be paraphrased as something will happen that results in John being in the state of knowing his admirer’s identity. This is most likely why there is some interpretation of almost and of the it takes x-time construction with statives in some cases as well (see footnotes 10 and 11). Since there very well might be another event that will take place that results in the states expressed by the statives (presumably salient because of real world knowledge), these stative predicates may be behaving like the activities from (16) in which an event, with a beginning will take place, resulting in the relevant state. This implicit event

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

may be the source of the infelicity. I assume that this is so (and leave the details of a comprehensive account for the future). 1.3  A first look at achievements 1.3.1  Achievements and tense entailments I have set achievements aside until now because they show a more complex pattern with respect to the range of tests and constructions that we have seen throughout the discussion of the other aspectual predicates types. First, note that, like accomplishments, achievements are telic predicates, as indicated by the sie interpretation in the presence of a durative phrase in (19). (19) a. Jerry caught the raccoon b. George shelved the book

for an hour. for an hour.18

Since achievements are telic, the events that they describe must have both a beginning and an end, by assumption. Therefore, they should pattern with accomplishments with respect to the tense entailments just discussed. Consider the past tense entailment in (20) first. (20) a. b.

Otto caught the dog yesterday. #In fact, he’s still catching it now.19 Frank caged the bird yesterday. #In fact, he’s still caging it now.

The events cannot be interpreted as continuing until and taking place at the utterance time. Achievements in past simple pattern like accomplishments in past simple in this respect. Consider achievements in the future simple in (21). (21) a. b.

Otto will catch the dog tomorrow. #In fact, he’s catching it now. Frank will cage the bird tomorrow. #In fact, he’s caging it now.

The events cannot be interpreted as taking place at the utterance time; achievements in future simple pattern with accomplishments in future simple. The data .  There is an interpretation of the durative that the book was on the shelf for an hour. The durative here modifies the resultant state. I ignore this interpretation as there is no one-to-one correspondence between a resultant state and a telic interpretation. This can be seen in the following achievement: John found his keys #for a week. and accomplishment: John built the house #for a month. Both are telic, but neither gives rise to a resultant state that can be modified by the durative. .  The second sentence is felicitous on a multiple events interpretation much like the ppaccomplishments from (13c). See footnote 16.



Chapter 3.  The syntax of eventives 2: Event features 

from (20) and (21) suggest that, like accomplishments, achievements describe events as having a beginning and an end, suggesting that they share the same basic event structure (see also Borer 2005: 333; Pustejovsky 1991: 56 n.9). 1.3.2  Achievements and event structure modifiers Recall from chapter one, section 3.1 that with respect to the it takes x-time construction, achievements and accomplishments pattern differently. Achievements elicit only a start-time interpretation. This is illustrated again in (22). (22) a. It took Jerry ten minutes to catch the raccoon. b. It took George ten minutes to shelve the book.

Since it takes x-time and almost modify the same portions of es, it is not surprising that almost with achievements results only in a counterfactual interpretation,20 again differing from accomplishments. This is illustrated in (23). (23) a. Jerry almost caught the raccoon. b. George almost shelved the book.

According to the tense entailments, achievements have both a beginning and an end. According to the es modifiers, only the beginning is visible for modification. A proper account of the es properties of eventive predicates must be able to handle these facts. 2.  Event features 2.1  The nature of event features I claim that the es of a predicate can be represented as event features. For a predicate to express that the event it describes has a beginning, an 〈ie〉 feature must be present in the predicate. For a predicate to express that the event it describes has an end, an 〈 fe〉 feature must be present in the predicate. Event features are interpretable features, much like number or person, and as such they contribute semantic content and they are visible in narrow syntax. Their semantic import is the interpretation of the beginning (i.e., 〈ie〉) or the end (i.e., 〈 fe〉) of an event. I do not assume that the beginning and end of an event are subevents in the sense of Pustejovsky (1991). There is no process portion necessarily tied to the beginning .  Note that there may be what seems to be an incompletive interpretation. In chapter four, section 1.1.1, I argue in detail that this apparent incompletive interpretation, sometimes available with achievements, results from the lexical meaning of the verb.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

of the event and there is no resultant state necessarily tied to the end of the event. Although the beginning and the end of the event are not subevents in this sense, they do contribute subevent structure precisely by determining whether or not there is a beginning and/or an end to the event. Given these assumptions, we can make an initial typological characterization of aspectual predicate types based on event features, illustrated in Table 1. Table 1.  Aspectual predicate type, based on event features Aspectual predicate type

Event

Structure

Accomplishment Achievement Activity Stative

〈ie〉 〈ie〉 〈ie〉 …

〈 fe〉 〈 fe〉 … …

Once these event features are combined with verb phrase structure (to derive aspectual syntactic structure), finer grained differences between accomplishments and achievements will fall out; nevertheless, this initial characterization is sufficient to explain the tense entailment properties discussed in section 1.2 above. Essentially I claim that the event features proposed here map to the event bounds of Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria (2000, 2004) which enter into the ordering relation with the utterance time to derive past and future tense. The basic schema in (24), following Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria’s (2000, 2004) schematic representations, illustrates the relation between the utterance time (UT-T) and event time (EV-T) in deriving past tense, illustrated in (24a), and deriving future tense, illustrated in (24b). Recall from above that the event time coincides with the assertion time. This is represented as EV-T = AST-T in (24). (24)

a.

b.





PAST TENSE EV-T (= AST-T) UT-T [ ] | 〈ie〉 〈fe〉 FUTURE TENSE UT-T EV-T(= AST-T) | [ ] 〈ie〉 〈fe〉

As indicated in (24) the left bound of the event (i.e., [) corresponds to the beginning of the event (i.e., 〈ie〉) and the right bound of the event (i.e.,]) corresponds to the end of the event (i.e., 〈 fe〉). The es of both accomplishments and achievements would be represented as in (24); both describe events with a beginning and an



Chapter 3.  The syntax of eventives 2: Event features 

end. The es of activities would have the representation in (25), and statives, the representation in (26). (25)

PAST TENSE EV-T (= AST-T) UT-T [ | 〈ie〉

a.

b.



FUTURE TENSE UT-T EV-T (= AST-T) | [ 〈ie〉

(26)

a.

PAST TENSE STATE (= AST-T) UT-T |

b.



FUTURE TENSE STATE (= AST-T) UT-T |



Assuming that event features correspond to event bounds, and these event bounds interact with the utterance time in the way discussed above, the different tense entailment patterns corresponding to the different es properties of the aspectual predicate types fall out systematically. 2.2  The aspectual syntactic structure of (pp-)accomplishments and activities I assume that event features enter narrow syntax on a head and project to the maximal projection level of that phrase, i.e., to the label. For a transitive activity, as in (27a), I propose the aspectual syntactic structure in (27b). (27) a.

The girl carried the ladder. …vP

b.

v′

DP the girl

v

AspP〈ie〉 VP

Asp 〈ie〉 V carry





DP the ladder

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

For a pp-accomplishment, as in (28a), I propose the aspectual syntactic structure in (28b). (28) a.

The girl carried the ladder into the bedroom. …vP

b.

v′

DP v

the girl

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

VP DP

V′

the ladder V carry



PP〈fe〉 P 〈fe〉 into



DP the bedroom

For a standard accomplishment, as in (29a), I propose the aspectual syntactic structure in (29b). (29) a.

Luke drank a beer. …vP

b.

v′

DP Luke

v

AspP〈ie〉 AspP 〈ie〉





VP〈fe〉 V 〈fe〉 drink

DP a beer

Event features play a role in narrow syntax in two ways: 1. In as much as the projection of a head is a syntactic phenomenon, these features project to the XP level, i.e., to the label; and 2. As part of the label these event features enter into an Agree relation with es modifiers. I claim that almost and it takes x-time Agree with XPs marked with event features and modify the corresponding portion of es of the predicate.21 If almost Agrees with an XP that is marked with an 〈ie〉 feature, the result is a counterfactual interpretation; if it Agrees with an XP marked with an .  I also assume that the time span adverbial Agrees with XPs flagged with an event feature, as it patterns with the it takes x-time construction. See footnote 8.



Chapter 3.  The syntax of eventives 2: Event features 

〈 fe〉 feature, the result is an incompletive interpretation.22 If it takes x-time (or the relevant part of the construction) Agrees with an XP that is marked with an 〈ie〉 feature, the result is a start-time interpretation. If it takes x-time Agrees with an XP that is marked with an 〈 fe〉, the result is an end-time interpretation. Consider the distribution of the event features in the structures in (27) to (29). Note that in each case, the 〈ie〉 feature is located on AspP. I assume that every time AspP is merged into the derivation, it merges with the 〈ie〉 feature on it.23 This is a stipulation. Nevertheless, by restricting the distribution of 〈ie〉 to AspP, the language acquisition process is arguably facilitated since evidence for the presence of AspP counts as evidence for the presence of the 〈ie〉 feature. Additionally, restricting 〈ie〉 to AspP limits the number of syntactic relations possible between the 〈ie〉 and 〈 fe〉 features, and as we will see below in section 2.3 the syntactic relation between these features plays a role in the interpretation of the es of a predicate. A limit on the number of syntactic relations is arguably a limit on computational complexity, a promising result within a minimalist approach to language.24 2.3  The aspectual syntactic structure of achievements I claim that both the 〈ie〉 and the 〈 fe〉 features of achievements enter on Asp in an event feature configuration. This is illustrated in (30). (30) a. b.

Jerry caught the raccoon. …vP

v′

DP Jerry

v

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉 V 〈fe〉 〈ie〉 catch





VP DP the raccoon

.  Observe that almost cannot scopally interact with itself: #John almost almost returned to the party. #John almost almost drove the Harley. There is no interpretation in which either almost takes scope over the other. This suggests that scope is not the correct way to account for almost. .  We will see in chapter five, section 3 that Russian behaves like a language that lacks AspP in its inventory of functional projections; it, therefore, is not subject to this constraint on the presence of the 〈ie〉 feature. .  Another possibility is that 〈ie〉 must always be high in the structure. In chapter four, we see that in the lexical derivation of achievements the 〈ie〉 feature is also high in the structure. It actually may turn out to be the case that because the feature is high in the structure, it is interpreted as an 〈ie〉 feature. These are possibilities that require further investigation.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

Note that the event features are in a particular configuration on Asp. Observe that only the 〈ie〉 feature projects to AspP; that is, only the 〈ie〉 feature forms part of the label of AspP. I claim that this explains the es modifier facts. Given the assumption that the es modifiers can only modify a portion of an event by Agreeing with an XP that has the corresponding event feature as part of its label, almost can only elicit a counterfactual interpretation and the it takes x-time construction can only elicit a start-time interpretation with achievements because only the 〈ie〉 feature projects to the XP level; consequently, only the beginning of the event can be modified. With respect to accomplishments, since 〈ie〉 and 〈 fe〉 are introduced on separate heads, both project to the XP level, and therefore both the beginning and the end of the event can be modified. This accounts for the es modifier divergences between achievements and accomplishments. Recall from chapter one, section 2 another difference between achievements and accomplishments: the events described by achievements are punctual in time and the events described by accomplishments are extended in time. The stop-control construction facts repeated below in (31) and (32) support this conclusion. (31) a. John stopped catching the raccoon. b. Bill stopped leaving (the basement). (32) a. Phil stopped drinking the pitcher of beer. b. Sal stopped eating the slice of pizza.

One way to understand the extended time interpretation of accomplishments is that time elapses between the beginning and the end of the event. Similarly, we can understand the punctual nature of achievements as no time elapsing between the beginning and the end of the event; the beginning and the end occur at the same time. I claim that this temporal difference between achievements and accomplishments falls out naturally from the syntactic relation between the event features. When there is a c-command relation between the 〈ie〉 and the 〈 fe〉 features, time is interpreted to elapse between the beginning and the end of the event described by the predicate. When there is no c-command relation between the 〈ie〉 and 〈 fe〉 features, no time is interpreted to elapse between the beginning and the end of the event. Since the 〈ie〉 and the 〈 fe〉 features are on separate heads in accomplishments, time is interpreted to elapse between the beginning and the end of the event the predicate describes. In contrast, since the 〈ie〉 and 〈 fe〉 features are on the same head in achievements, no time is interpreted to elapse between the beginning and the end of the event. I assume that the event feature configuration on the head of Asp in (30b) is the result a lexical process. I dedicate chapter four to the exploration of a Hale & Keyser (1993, 2002) lexical derivational approach to this event feature configuration. Here, I just briefly note some initial motivation for it by considering two properties of English compounds. First, note that the non-projecting member of



Chapter 3.  The syntax of eventives 2: Event features 

an English compound does not participate in syntactic operations. Second, note that the non-projecting member, although invisible to syntactic operations, still contributes to interpretation. Consider the example in (33). (33) a.

V1 V2 drop

V1 kick

b. John *droppedkick/dropkicked the ball.

The member of the compound that projects is kick, illustrated in (33a). Thus, only this component is available for tense lowering, shown in (33b). Only the projecting member is visible to this syntactic operation. The non-projecting drop is not. Although the non-projecting element is syntactically invisible, it still contributes to the interpretation of the sentence. For kicking a ball and dropkicking a ball are two distinct ways to set a ball in motion. I adopt similar assumptions for the event feature configuration of achievements. I assume that the event feature configuration is formed prior to entering the syntax, and enters on Asp. Given that only the 〈ie〉 feature of the feature configuration is the projecting member, it is the only feature available for syntactic operations (like kick in 33), i.e., it projects to AspP, the 〈 fe〉 feature does not. Although the 〈 fe〉 feature does not project, I assume that it still contributes to the interpretation of the predicate (like drop in 33), i.e., it provides an end to the event; thus, achievements are telic. In (34), I summarize by providing a syntactic typology of eventive predicate types.25 (34) Syntactic typology of eventive predicate types Eventives: AspP present (〈ie〉 on Asp) No 〈fe〉 | Activity



〈fe〉 & 〈ie〉 present on same head | Achievement

on different heads

on V | Standard accomplishment

on P | PP-accomplishment

.  Statives are missing; they have no event features. They are discussed in more detail in chapter five, section 1. See also chapter eight, section 1 for a complete syntactic typology of aspectual predicates types that includes statives.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

Observe that the distinct eventive predicate types differ by the distribution of 〈 fe〉. There is no 〈 fe〉 in activities; 〈 fe〉 is on Asp for achievements, on V for standard accomplishments and on P for pp-accomplishments. Setting the 〈ie〉 feature aside, note that the distribution of the 〈 fe〉 feature is essentially free. It can appear on any head below little v. This derives the variety of different eventive predicate types attested.

3.  The interaction of the object-to-event mapping and event structure 3.1  Valuing Asp and interpreting event features In chapter one, section 2 I argued that es is independent of the ote mapping. Although this is so, the ote mapping interacts with the es of a predicate. Consider the sentences in (35) and (36). (35) a. John drank a beer b. John caught a bear c. John carried a goat into the barn

#for ten minutes. #for ten minutes. #for ten minutes.

The standard accomplishment in (35a), the achievement in (35b) and the ppaccomplishment in (35c) are all telic predicates, as evidenced by the incompatibility of the durative on a single event interpretation. Nevertheless, when these predicates have a [–q]np internal argument, they all become atelic, as illustrated in (36). (36) a. John drank beer b. John caught wildlife c. John carried livestock into the barn

for ten minutes. for ten minutes. for ten minutes.

When a [–q]np Agrees with Asp, the 〈 fe〉 feature is no longer interpreted as contributing subevent structure. I claim that the ote mapping affects the interpretation of es indirectly by affecting the extent of the domain of aspectual interpretation. We concluded from chapter two, section 3 that for an element to contribute to aspectual interpretation, it must fall within the domain of aspectual interpretation. It is, therefore, natural to make sense of the patterns in (35) and (36) in terms of the domain of aspectual interpretation. I assume that the minimal domain of aspectual interpretation is the projection AspP alone. Unless Asp is valued by a [+q]np, the domain of aspectual interpretation remains minimal, i.e., AspP alone, as indicated in (37) below. If Asp is valued by a [+q]np, the domain extends from AspP alone to everything contained by AspP, as indicated in (38) below.



Chapter 3.  The syntax of eventives 2: Event features 

(37)

…vP Minimal domain of aspectual interpretation v

AspP·ieÒ AspP ·ieÒ



VP V



…

…vP

(38)

Extended domain of aspectual interpretation v

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉





VP V

…

Since, the 〈ie〉 feature always merges on Asp, I assume that it always enters into the domain of aspectual interpretation, regardless of how Asp is valued, contributing subevent structure, expressing that the event has a beginning. Consequently, only the 〈 fe〉 feature is affected by the domain of aspectual interpretation. The 〈 fe〉 feature will only contribute subevent structure if it is within the domain of aspectual interpretation, i.e., if Asp is valued by a [+q]np. If the 〈 fe〉 feature is not within the domain of aspectual interpretation, it will not contribute to subevent structure, but simply modify the event.26 Let us consider the effects of a minimal domain of aspectual interpretation first. If a [–q]np values Asp the domain will not extend and the predicate will be interpreted as atelic. Additionally, when there is no np to value Asp, I assume that the domain will likewise remain minimal, and the predicate will be atelic. Only when Asp is valued by a [+q]np can the domain extend. Intransitive activities illustrate that when a predicate lacks an internal argument, the predicate is interpreted as atelic. Examples of intransitive activities are given in (39). (39) a. John drove b. John danced c. John sang

for an hour. for an hour. for an hour.

.  In MacDonald (2006b: 51) I assume that the 〈 fe〉 feature is actually an underspecified feature that receives an interpretation in function of the domain of aspectual interpretation. I leave this open as a possibility and offer here an alternative that the 〈 fe〉 feature still adds an end to the event, but does not contribute subevent structure. Something similar seems to be happening with Russian superlexical prefixes, as we will see in chapter five, section 3.2.2.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect



d. e. f. g. i. j.

John ate John drank John ran John laughed John cried John screamed

for an hour. for an hour. for an hour. for an hour. for an hour. for an hour.

In each of the sentences in (39), there is no overt internal argument to value Asp. I assume in this case, Asp receives a default [–q] value, which ultimately does not affect the domain of aspectual interpretation. It remains minimal and the result is an atelic interpretation of the predicate. Nevertheless, another possibility is that these intransitives are underlying transitives (Chomsky 1995: 315–316; Hale & Keyser 1993: 78) with a null internal argument. If this is so, we would need to assume that the null internal argument is a [–q] np. Thus, the sentences in (39d) and (39e), for example, might be underlyingly equivalent to the sentences in (40a) and (40b) respectively. (40) a. John ate food b. John drank beverage

for an hour. for an hour.

Although this is a logical possibility, it is not clear what the underlying null internal argument should be in all cases, as illustrated in (41). (41)

a. b. c. d.

John ran distance John laughed a laugh ??John cried a cry ??John screamed a scream

for an hour. for an hour. for an hour. for an hour.

Note that with what would seem to be the corresponding overt version of the null internal argument, many of these sentences are ungrammatical,27 and furthermore, the internal argument in some cases seems like it would be a [+q]np. Although it may be difficult to determine what the overt form of the null internal argument should correspond to, if there were null [–q] internal arguments, we might expect there also to be null [+q] internal arguments. This would entail the existence of telic unergatives. Interestingly, Harley (2005: 6) provides just such examples.28 (42) a. The mare foaled b. The dog whelped c. The cow calved

#for 2 hours/in 2 hours. #for 2 hours/in 2 hours. #for 2 hours/in 2 hours.

.  Although there is some improvement when an adjective is added: John laughed a hardy laugh. John screamed a loud scream. ?John cried a sorrowful cry as has been previously observed. .  Judgments here are provided by Harley (2005: 6). My judgments fail with these verbs.



Chapter 3.  The syntax of eventives 2: Event features 

Telic unergative predicates seem to exist, suggesting that there may in fact be null [+q]nps, just like there seem to be null [–q]nps. I leave this as a possible approach to these predicates, noting that a pursuit along these lines would ultimately have to determine when a verb would take a null [+q] internal argument and when a verb would take a null [–q] internal argument. Regardless of this logical possibility, I continue to assume that when there is no internal argument to value Asp, it receives a default [–q] value. We will see in chapter six, section 2.1.2 that assuming that Asp receives a default [–q] value, leading to an atelic predicate, offers an explanation for why predicates such as John talked to his teacher for an hour, in which there is a goal pp, are atelic and not telic, as might be expected by the presence of a goal pp. Now consider briefly the effects of a minimal domain of aspectual interpretation on the interpretation of the 〈 fe〉 feature introduced on a goal P as a way to understand the effect of a [–q]np on the aspectual interpretation of a predicate in general. When a [–q]np values Asp, this 〈 fe〉 no longer contributes subevent structure, as shown above in (36c). The goal P simply modifies the event. In this situation, the goal P behaves much like a directional P, which does not contribute subevent structure to the event. Consider the directional Ps in (43). (43) a. The kid carried the bag (toward the bedroom) b. The girl pushed the sofa (toward the garage)

for an hour. for an hour.

Moreover, like goal Ps, directional Ps are not perfectly grammatical in the do so construction, suggesting that they are also low in the verb phrase. (44) a. b.

?The

kid carried a bag toward the bedroom and the guy did so toward the living room. ?The girl pushed a sofa toward the garage and the boy did so toward the shed.

When a [–q] np values Asp, 〈 fe〉 features fall outside the domain of aspectual interpretation and can no longer contribute subevent structure. It is intuitively correct that the (in)ability of a goal P to contribute subevent structure (i.e., turn an atelic predicate into a telic predicate) is tied to the domain of aspectual interpretation. This is precisely what was argued in chapter one, section 3. Moreover, recall the discussion there of ambiguous goal-location Ps. When the P is above AspP and outside the domain of aspectual interpretation, it no longer turns an atelic predicate telic; this is because, although it bears an 〈 fe〉 feature, it falls outside the domain of aspectual interpretation. Furthermore, we will see in chapter five that English stative predicates lack AspP, and therefore lack a domain of aspectual interpretation; consequently, adding a goal P to a stative does not turn it into a telic predicate. Since the ability of a goal P to contribute subevent structure is tied to

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

AspP and the domain of aspectual interpretation, it is natural that the effect that a [–q]np has on a predicate affects the interpretation of the 〈 fe〉 feature via the domain of aspectual interpretation.29 I assume that this is the case not only for the 〈 fe〉 feature on goal Ps, but for 〈 fe〉 features in general. 3.2  Aspectual calculation at the phase AspP is between vp and vp and defines a syntactic space within which elements must appear in order to contribute to the aspectual interpretation of the predicate. Although this is so, there is evidence that these elements are not calculated until Transfer to CI at vp, until the phase. Note that this entails that a piecemeal derivational approach to the aspectual calculation of a predicate cannot be correct. Consider the fake reflexive construction in (45) and the way construction in (46). (45) a. A bear walked itself into the barn b. Wildlife walked itself into the barn

for an hour/in an hour. for an hour/#in an hour.

(46) a. A bear walked its way into the barn b. Wildlife walked its way into the barn

for an hour/in an hour. for an hour/#in an hour.

In the (a) examples there are [+q]np subjects and the predicates are telic. In each case the durative elicits an sie interpretation and the time span adverbial can modify the end of the event. In contrast, in the (b) examples, there are [–q]np subjects and the predicates are atelic. In each of these cases, there is a single event interpretation of the durative, and the time span adverbial cannot modify the end of the event. Although the external arguments seem to be participating directly in the ote mapping here, this cannot be the case. For if they did, we would still expect them to do so even when replacing the reflexive and way with other nps. Consider the sentences in (47). (47) a. A bear walked livestock into the barn b. Wildlife walked a goat into the barn

for an hour/#in an hour. for an hour/in an hour.

.  Note that since the ability of a (goal) P to turn an atelic predicate into a telic predicate depends on the domain of aspectual interpretation, and the extent of the domain of aspectual interpretation is dependent on the ote mapping, the ability of a (goal) P to turn an atelic predicate into a telic predicate is tied to the present of the ote mapping property. That is, we expect that if a (goal) P in a language can turn an atelic predicate into a telic predicate, then that language should also show the ote mapping property, although the inverse relation does not necessarily hold. In chapter eight, section 3.2 I discuss this possible correlation in more detail.



Chapter 3.  The syntax of eventives 2: Event features 

In (47a) the external argument is a [+q]np and the object is a [–q]np and the predicate is atelic. In (47b) the external argument is a [–q]np and the object is a [+q]np and the predicate is telic. These sentences show that the external arguments only indirectly participate in the ote mapping in the sentences in (45) and (46). I assume that they do so by determining the [q] feature of the reflexive in (45) and way in (46). Once the [q] features of the reflexive and way are determined, these elements can enter into an Agree relation with Asp and value it accordingly. If this analysis is correct, then the time at which the aspectual properties of the predicate are calculated is later in the derivation than when AspP merges, minimally not until the external argument merges, otherwise the reflexive and way would not be able to value Asp. In fact, since the [q] features of the reflexive and way are dependent on the external argument, Asp would consistently receive a default [–q] value, and we would expect these predicates to always be atelic, which is not the case. Consequently, I conclude that the aspectual properties of a predicate cannot be calculated at least until the external argument merges. Interestingly, there is motivation to think that the aspectual properties of a predicate are not calculated after the external argument merges either. Svenonius (2005: 240) observes that idioms tend not to cross phases boundaries. Essentially, all of the relevant parts of an idiom will be contained within a phase. This fact is relevant, for as we will see in chapter four, section 3 many idioms have a particular invariant aspectual specification. For now consider just one idiom in (48). (48) John cooled his heals

for ten minutes/#in ten minutes.

The Oxford Dictionary of Idioms (Siefring 2005: 147) lists cool your heels with the meaning “be kept waiting”. This idiom is atelic.30 Interestingly, note that the predicate headed by this verb on a non-idiomatic interpretation is aspectually ambiguous, as illustrated in (49).31 (49) John cooled the soup

for ten minutes/in ten minutes.

These cases clearly show that these idioms are aspectually specified. That is, (a)telicity is a relevant part of the specification of an idiom. Since (a)telicity is

.  The Penguin Dictionary of English Idioms (Gulland & Hinds-Howell 2002: 108) lists to kick/cool one’s heels with the meaning to be kept waiting a long time. They provide the following example: I had to kick my heels outside his office for a whole hour. .  This is one of Dowty’s (1979: 88) degree-achievements. Note that the fact that when used in an idiom this verb is not aspectually ambiguous, in contrast to its non-idiomatic use, is problematic for McGinnis’s (2002: 667) claim that the aspectual interpretation on both the idiomatic and non-idiomatic use of a predicate coincide. I discuss the aspectual properties of idioms in detail in chapter four, section 3.2.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

a relevant part of an idiom, and the parts of an idiom tend not to cross phase boundaries, we can draw the conclusion indirectly that the elements relevant to (a)telicity are contained within the phase as well. The calculation of the aspectual properties of a predicate cannot take place before the external argument is merged nor after the vp phase. I conclude that the time at which the aspectual properties of a predicate are calculated is at the vp phase, at Transfer to CI. 3.3  Syntactic derivations of aspectual predicate types In this section I walk through the syntactic derivations of a pp-accomplishment with a [+q]np and with a [–q]np internal argument, as well as the derivation of an achievement with a [+q]np and with a [–q]np internal argument. What holds for the derivation of pp-accomplishments, holds for the derivation of standard accomplishments as well. Consider the sentence in (50a) and a portion of its derivation in (50b). (50) a.

Ron carried the bag into the bedroom. …PP〈fe〉

b.





P 〈fe〉 into

DP the bedroom

I assume into enters the derivation bearing an 〈 fe〉 feature.32 After merging with the dp the bedroom, the P into projects all relevant information including the event feature; this information makes up the label. At this point of the derivation, whether or not the 〈 fe〉 contributes to subevent structure has yet to be determined. Consider another portion of this derivation in (51). …VP

(51)

V′

DP the bag [+q]





PP〈fe〉

V P 〈fe〉 into

DP the bedroom

.  It seems to be the case that in English, all goal phrases are consistently associated with an 〈 fe〉 feature. This is at least one important difference between goal prepositions and directional prepositions (e.g., toward) in English; directional prepositions are never associated with an 〈 fe〉 feature; see section 3.1 above. There is a possibility that not all goal phrases in all languages are associated with an 〈 fe〉 feature. Beck & Snyder (2001) argue for a Principle R that determines whether or not a goal P can turn an activity into an accomplishment. They assume that not all languages have this Principle R.



Chapter 3.  The syntax of eventives 2: Event features 

The [+q] feature on the internal argument does not have any aspectual effect until Asp is merged. Consider the next step in the derivation in (52). (52)

…AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈fe〉

Minimal domain of aspectual interpretation VP

DP

V′

the bag V [+q]



PP〈fe〉 P into 〈fe〉



DP the bedroom

Recall that minimally the domain of aspectual interpretation is the aspectual projection AspP itself; this is indicated in the tree in (52). However given that a [+q]np Agrees with Asp, when Asp is valued, the domain will extend to everything contained by AspP, which includes the 〈 fe〉 feature on P. This is illustrated in (53).33 (53)

…AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

Extended domain of aspectual interpretation

VP DP

V′

the bag V [+q] carry





PP〈fe〉 P 〈fe〉 into

DP the bedroom

The derivation continues in normal fashion. Because the 〈 fe〉 feature falls within the domain of aspectual interpretation, when Transfer to CI takes place, this event feature will be interpreted as contributing subevent structure; the predicate will be interpreted as telic. Consider the derivation of the sentence in (54). (54) Ron carried sand into the bedroom.

.  Note that if Chomsky (2007) is correct in that all relations take place at Transfer to CI, then valuation will take place later in the derivation. Since the time at which valuation itself takes place does not alter the outcome of the derivations discussed here (but see the discussion of surrounding examples (45) to (49)) I put this technical issue aside.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

Note that this sentence only differs from the previous one in that there is a [–q]np internal argument. Consequently, the derivation of this sentence is exactly the same until the point where AspP enters. Consider this point of the derivation in (55). (55) …AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

VP DP

V′

sand V [–q] carry





PP〈fe〉 P 〈fe〉 into

DP the bedroom

The domain of aspectual interpretation is the AspP projection alone, and since a [–q]np values Asp, nothing happens to the domain; that is, it does not extend. The result is that the 〈 fe〉 feature introduced on P falls outside of the domain of aspectual interpretation, and therefore does not contribute subevent structure; it is interpreted as modifying the whole event. Only the 〈ie〉 feature falls within the domain of aspectual interpretation because it merges directly on Asp. It can, therefore, contribute subevent structure. The event is interpreted as having a beginning. Since there is only a beginning to the event, the predicate is atelic. This is the case whenever a [–q]np values Asp. The derivation for a standard accomplishment proceeds in the same way as the derivation of a pp-accomplishment, except that the 〈 fe〉 feature is introduced on V, not on P. Given that their derivations are essentially identical, I do not walk through the derivation of a standard accomplishment. However, it is worth considering in detail the derivation of an achievement predicate. Let us first consider the derivation of the sentence in (56) in which the internal argument is a [+q]np. (56) Tom caught the beast.

Recall that achievements have two event features that enter into the syntax as an event feature configuration. Let us begin the derivation at this point, illustrated in (57). (57)

…AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉 〈fe〉 〈ie〉





VP V catch

DP the beast [+q]



Chapter 3.  The syntax of eventives 2: Event features 

Because the internal argument np is [+q], the domain of aspectual interpretation extends to everything contained by AspP, and when the aspectual interpretation of the predicate is calculated, the 〈 fe〉 feature on Asp will be interpreted as contributing subevent structure i.e., the predicate will be interpreted as telic. Let us now consider the more interesting case of the derivation of an achievement with a [–q]np internal argument, as in (58a), at the point in its syntactic derivation when Asp enters, illustrated in (58b). (58) a.

Tom caught wildlife. …AspP〈ie〉

b. Asp 〈ie〉 〈fe〉 〈ie〉





VP V catch

DP wildlife [–q]

As noted above, when a [–q]np values Asp, there is no extension of the domain of aspectual interpretation; therefore, the domain is the AspP projection alone. Crucially, given the system developed here, we must assume that although the 〈ie〉 feature falls within this minimal domain of aspectual interpretation, the 〈 fe〉 feature does not. This may at first seem problematic as both features enter the syntactic derivation in a configuration on the same head. However, the intuition to follow is that since only the 〈ie〉 feature projects to the XP level, only it enters into the minimal domain of aspectual interpretation. Technically, this can be executed by restricting the minimal domain of aspectual interpretation to the label alone. This would allow the 〈ie〉 feature to enter while keeping the 〈 fe〉 feature out, since the 〈 fe〉 feature does not project.34

4.  From chapter three to chapters four and five Event structure is the domain of inner aspect. I have argued that the way in which es is grammaticalized is through interpretable event features that determine whether the event described by a predicate is interpreted as having a beginning .  A label-free alternative would require a more finely structured definition of a head in order to allow the 〈ie〉 feature, but not the 〈 fe〉 feature, to enter into the domain of aspectual interpretation. I do not explore this line here.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

and/or an end, i.e., an 〈ie〉 and/or an 〈 fe〉 feature. Only telic predicates have both features. Furthermore, a c-command relation between these event features determines whether or not time is interpreted as elapsing between the beginning and end of the event. For accomplishments, the event features enter the syntax on distinct heads, and therefore, time is interpreted to elapse between the beginning and end of the event. For achievements in contrast, I claim that there is an event feature configuration that enters the syntax on the same head; since they are on the same head, no c-command relation holds, and no time is interpreted to elapse between the beginning and end of the event. This not only captures the punctual nature of the event described by achievement predicates and the extend-time interpretation of events described by accomplishment predicates, but also the different interpretations elicited by the es modifiers with both predicate types; since, as I claimed, the lexical derivation of the event feature configuration of achievements affects the syntactic visibility of the event features. In this chapter, I have simply assumed that a lexical derivation can explain these properties of achievements. I dedicate chapter four to explicitly arguing that this is the case. Recall from section 2 above that event features alone determine the aspectual class of a predicate, by determining whether or not there is a beginning or end to the event, and whether or not time elapses between the beginning and end. In contrast, the domain of aspectual interpretation, intimately tied to the ote mapping, only indirectly affects the aspectual interpretation of the predicate. The ote mapping does so by affecting the extent of the domain; the domain itself determines whether or not an event feature contributes subevent structure: if it is within the domain it can contribute subevent structure; if it is not, it cannot. This entails that es alone (i.e., event features) is visible to the CI interface; the domain of aspectual interpretation is not. The domain of aspectual interpretation is a syntactic phenomenon that is ultimately invisible to the CI interface, much in the same way that Agree is a syntactic relation that is invisible to the CI interface. The CI interface only cares about the effects of the domain of aspectual interpretation, like it only cares about the effects of the Agree relation. That es is visible to the CI interface and the ote mapping (and the domain of aspectual interpretation) is not can only hold if these properties are independent of each other, as concluded in chapter one, section 2. Assuming that the mapping to the CI-interface is uniform, i.e., universal (Chomsky 2004: 17, 2007: 12 n. 17), a natural conclusion here is that event features and the relations in which they enter are universal properties of inner aspect. This seems to be correct. First note that interpretable (and semantic) features are legible to the CI interface, by definition. Event features are interpretable features, and interpretable features are found universally. Second, c-command is legible to the CI interface, minimally for operator variable relations (Chomsky 2007: 9, 17).



Chapter 3.  The syntax of eventives 2: Event features 

The c-command relation between event features is relevant for the interpretation of the es of a predicate. Event features (and es) are legible to the CI interface because they conform to the conditions imposed by the CI interface. This indicates that es is most likely a universal property of inner aspect. Let us assume that this is so. Since es is independent of the ote mapping property, there is no necessity that the ote mapping property also be universal. In fact, in chapter five I argue explicitly that the ote mapping is not a universal property of inner aspect; it is a variant property of inner aspect. This can only be the case if es and the ote mapping property are independent properties.

chapter 4

A lexical derivation of achievements In chapter three, I claimed that the event feature configuration of achievements is lexically derived. In this chapter I motivate this claim and explore its consequences. Specifically, I argue that by assuming the existence of event features, and combining these event features with Hale & Keyser’s (1993, 2002) system of lexically deriving deadjectival and denominal verbs, we can explain the range of properties that surround achievements. Essentially, the event features are present in the initial lexical representation and conflation rearranges them into an event feature configuration. A surprising prediction results from this approach: there are no accomplishments in the lexicon. I test this prediction by discussing idioms. Glasbey (2007) observes that Nunberg et al.’s (1994) idiomatically combining expressions (ices) and idiomatic phrases (ips) show systematically different aspectual properties. The former have idiomatic parts and are aspectually compositional in a way that parallels their non-idiomatic counterparts; the latter, in contrast, lack idiomatic parts and aspectual compositionality. I suggest that syntax plays a role in the aspectual compositionality of ices; in contrast, the (aspectual) properties of ips form a unit in the lexicon. If this is so, only ips are relevant for testing the prediction that there are no accomplishments in the lexicon. If, as I argue, there are no accomplishments in the lexicon, then narrow syntax must play a crucial role in their formation. Nevertheless, syntax alone cannot be responsible for all properties of all aspectual predicate types, since as we will see, there are unequivocal activity, achievement and stative idioms; the lexicon must also be playing a crucial role in their formation. This entails that there is a division of labor between the lexicon and the syntax; there must be an operative lexicon (Reinhart & Siloni 2005: 389). This account provides support for an operative lexicon. If, in fact, there is an operative lexicon involved in aspectual formation, (neo-)constructional approaches to inner aspect which rely solely on syntax to derive the aspectual properties of a predicate cannot be maintained (Borer 2005; Ritter & Rosen 1998, 2000). A lack of accomplishments in the lexicon entails that narrow syntax must play a crucial role in their formation, since we know that some predicates are interpreted as accomplishments. I claim that this role is two-fold. The first is general for all aspectual predicate types and was argued for in chapter three, section 3.2: the calculation of the elements contributing to aspectual interpretation takes place in

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

narrow syntax, at Transfer to CI, at the phase. The second is more specific to the interpretation of accomplishments: external merge; it establishes the c-command relation between the event features such that time is interpreted to elapse between the beginning and the end of the event. The present approach to achievements fits into a larger group of approaches that assumes that the lexicon is guided by the same (or similar) syntactic principles of narrow syntax (Hale & Keyser 1993, 2002; Di Sciullo 1999; Mateu 2002; Roeper 1993; among others). We will see that the range of initial lexical representations corresponds to the range of distinct aspectual predicate types in narrow syntax. Additionally, I suggest here that there may be a phase-like quality to the lexiconsyntax interface. Only the highest elements of (complex) lexical items seem to be able to participate in syntactic operations, much in the same way that only the edge of a phase in narrow syntax is accessible by higher phases (Chomsky 2000: 108, 2001: 13, 2007: 16). A reduction of the space where syntactic operations are carried out ultimately reduces computational complexity, i.e., the pic (Chomsky 2000: 108, 2001: 13, 2004: 108). Under this minimalist view, it is not entirely unexpected that only the “edge” of (complex) lexical items can enter into syntactic operations. Interestingly, although only the highest elements of a lexical item are visible to syntax, its internal elements are still visible to semantics. The same state of affairs holds for phases in narrow syntax in as much as the elements internal to a phase must be recoverable at the CI interface for interpretation (Boeckx & Grohmann 2007: 6). In at least this way, phases and words share properties, as has been previously considered (see, for example, Uriagereka 1999). If the lexicon is guided by the same syntactic principles of narrow syntax, these results are not entirely surprising. This chapter is organized as follows: In section 1, focusing on location verbs, I show how a Hale & Keyser (1993, 2002) lexical derivational approach can explain the range of properties surrounding achievements. I also suggest that the lexicon-syntax interface shows some properties of phases. By adopting this assumption, certain properties of verbs of inherently directed motion can be explained. In section 2, I apply the event feature approach of es to other lexical representational structures to show how they are handled. I discuss locatum and deadjectival verbs. In section 3, I show how the present approach predicts the lack of accomplishments in the lexicon. Relevant to this discussion is the dichotomy between ices and ips made in Nunberg et al. (1994) and their corresponding aspectual properties as discussed in Glasbey (2007). I discuss the consequences this has for the contribution of narrow syntax to inner aspect. Finally, in section 4, I consider some consequences of this lexical derivational approach to achievements.



Chapter 4.  A lexical derivation of achievements 

1.  A Hale & Keyser lexical derivational approach to achievements In chapter three, section 2.3 I suggested that the properties surrounding achievements could be explained by an event feature configuration on the head of Asp in which only the 〈ie〉 feature projects to its label. This is illustrated in (1). ...vP

(1) v

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉





〈fe〉 〈ie〉

VP V

...

Since only 〈ie〉 projects, only it is syntactically visible, only the beginning of the event can be modified by es modifiers. Nevertheless, although 〈 fe〉 is not visible to syntax, it is visible to semantics. In fact, both the 〈 fe〉 and 〈ie〉 features contribute to the semantic interpretation of the predicate by contributing subevent structure, an end and a beginning to the event respectively; because of this, achievement predicates are telic. I propose here that this event feature configuration of achievements can be explained by appealing to Hale & Keyser’s (1993) lexical derivational approach to deadjectival and denominal verbs. First consider the denominal location verbs in (2). (2) a. Jerry caged the bird. b. Bill shelved the book. c. The sheriff jailed the thief.

Hale & Keyser assume that the initial lexical representation of these denominal location verbs is essentially the same as the following analytic forms in (3). (3) a. Jerry put the bird in the cage. b. Bill put the book on the shelf. c. The sheriff put the thief in jail.

The initial lexical representation of cage is given in (4).1

.  I use the representations primarily from Hale & Keyser (1993).

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

(4)

V V

VP NP

V′ V

PP P



NP N cage



They claim that these verbs are denominal precisely because they are derived via conflation of the nominal element into the abstract P and into the higher abstract V, deriving a structure as in (5).2 VP

(5) V V P N cage





V V

P

VP NP

V′ t

PP t

NP t

.  Note that in Hale & Keyser (1993: 54) they assume that the configuration in (5) is the result of head movement, that is, incorporation in the sense of Baker (1988). In Hale & Keyser (2002: 12) the notion of head movement (and incorporation) is replaced by the notion of conflation, which they note are “closely related and may ultimately prove to be the same thing”. The distinguishing characteristic is that under the notion of conflation, the np in the inner specifier position (i.e., the np in Spec,vp in (4) and (5)) cannot incorporate into the highest V head, while under incorporation, because the inner specifier is governed by the highest V head, it can. Incorporation makes an incorrect prediction in this respect, conflation does not. Thus, although I adopt the structures from Hale & Keyser (1993), I use the term conflation throughout.



Chapter 4.  A lexical derivation of achievements 

Interestingly these denominal location verbs are achievements.3 This can be seen by the iterative interpretation in the stop-control construction in (6), the unambiguous counterfactual interpretation of almost in (7) and the unambiguous starttime interpretation of it takes x-time in (8).4 (6) a. Jerry stopped caging the bird. b. Bill stopped shelving the book. c. The sheriff stopped jailing the thief. (7) a. Jerry almost caged the bird. b. Bill almost shelved the book. c. The sheriff almost jailed the thief. (8) a. It took Jerry ten minutes to cage the bird. b. It took Bill ten minutes to shelve the book. c. It took the sheriff a day to jail the thief.

Consider the initial lexical representations of the location verbs from (2) with an 〈ie〉 and an 〈 fe〉 feature added, illustrated in (9).

.  It is not clear that all location verbs are achievements. For example, corner and corral seem to behave like activities, although this may be on a less literal interpretation of each. It is interesting to note that when they are not interpreted as achievements, they behave like activities, not accomplishments. This can be accounted for straightforwardly here by simply removing the 〈 fe〉 feature from the P, as suggested for locatum verbs in section 2.2 below. Perhaps a more problematic location verb for the present account is bottle, which does not pattern unequivocally as an achievement. For example, John bottled the wine in two hours. seems to allow an interpretation in which after two hours the wine was bottled. However, John almost bottled the wine. only allows for a counterfactual interpretation. Below in section 3.2.4 I discuss idioms that show a similar pattern with respect to tests for aspectual class. I argue that this is related to the degree that an expression is lexicalized. If this is on the right track, it would mean that bottle is less lexicalized than, for example, shelve. .  I will discuss the counterfactual and start-time interpretations with these location verbs in more detail below in section 1.1.1 after I discuss verbs of inherently directed motion. Note that what may seem in some cases to be an incompletive and end-time interpretation is the result of other lexical semantic factors affecting the interpretation, as I discuss below. For now, note that there is no ambiguous interpretation elicited by almost nor the it takes x-time construction here.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

(9)

V(AspP)〈ie〉 V(Asp) 〈ie〉

VP

NP

V′ V

PP〈fe〉 P 〈fe〉



NP N cage



Hale & Keyser (1993) argue that lexical argument structure is governed by syntactic principles. One way to understand this is that there is syntax in the lexicon. If we assume that, like AspP in narrow syntax, only the highest abstract V can bear 〈ie〉, and the abstract P introduces the 〈 fe〉 feature here, then the resulting lexical structure looks much like the pp-accomplishments we find in narrow syntax.5 The resulting structure after conflation is given in (10). V(AspP)〈ie〉

(10) V(Asp) 〈ie〉 V P 〈fe〉





N cage

Asp 〈ie〉 V

VP NP

V′ t

PP〈fe〉 t

P 〈fe〉

NP t

There are two characteristics of the event feature configuration proposed in chapter three that were taken to explain the properties surrounding achievements.

.  Hale & Keyser (1993) assume there is no functional structure in the lexicon. AspP may be verbal in nature, bearing lexical information, the 〈ie〉 feature minimally.



Chapter 4.  A lexical derivation of achievements 

The first was related to the syntactic visibility of the 〈ie〉 feature and the syntactic invisibility of the 〈 fe〉 feature. The second was related to the semantic contribution of the 〈 fe〉 feature; although not syntactically visible it is semantically visible. For the lexical derivation of achievements to go through, these two characteristics must be present in the structure in (10). This seems to be the case. I claim that the 〈 fe〉 feature in (10) is not visible to narrow syntactic operations because it is too deeply embedded in the head. The 〈ie〉 feature, on the other hand, is high in the structure, and therefore visible to syntax.6 We saw something similar with English compounds in chapter three (i.e., *droppedkick vs. dropkicked); only the highest member of the compound is visible to syntactic operations. A consideration of denominal verbs suggests that this is the right direction to take, for note that denominal verbs are verbs, not nouns or prepositions, although they are derived via conflation of a noun through an abstract preposition. There is an obvious structural explanation for this; the N category of the noun and the P category of the abstract preposition are too deeply embedded in the structure to be visible to syntax; thus, these location verbs do not have the distribution of nouns or prepositions. A denominal location verb surfaces as a verb because the highest category into which it conflates is a V.7 Furthermore, I claim that, although it is not visible to syntactic operations, the 〈 fe〉 feature does contribute to semantic interpretation. Recall that we saw something similar with English compounds in chapter three (i.e., dropkicking a ball is something distinct from kicking the ball); although the lowest member of the compound is not visible to syntactic operations, it does contribute to overall interpretation.

.  In discussing the ungrammaticality of “serial” constructions such as *He speared straighten derived from [V1 V1 [V2 spear V2 [ straight]]] in which spear in the specifier of V2 incorporates hypothetically into the highest V1, Hale & Keyser (2002: 20–21) rule this out by assuming that conflation does not take place from a specifier into a head. Nevertheless, they offer an alternative explanation in footnote 9 from chapter one: “ill-formed [*He speared straighten] might also be explained in terms of sentential syntax: a verb must be licensed there by functional categories (e.g., Tense); the internal verb, V2, cannot be licensed since it is not raised to V1.” I interpret this possible explanation to mean that if V2 is not raised, it may be too low in the structure; if an element is not high enough, narrow syntax cannot “see” it. .  In Hale & Keyser (2002: 18) the initial lexical representation for location (and locatum) verbs is the following: [V V [P Spec P [ N]]] in which there is only one abstract (monadic) V. They argue that this highest monadic V is responsible for the projection of an external argument in sentential syntax. They claim that “location and locatum verbs fail to “detransitivize” because omission of the upper verb leaves a P(repositional)-projection, not a verbal projection.” (Hale & Keyser 2002: 29). This suggests that being the highest element in the structure is important for determining the category of the construction, which in turn is important for determining its distribution in syntax.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

A consideration of denominal verbs suggests that this is also correct. For, note that to cage a bird is not to put a bird on top of a cage, but to put a bird in a cage; the preposition contributes a specific spatial relation. Note also that to cage a bird is not to put a bird in a box, but to put a bird in a cage; the noun contributes to the interpretation of the location of the bird. In each case, the P and N categories are invisible to syntax, although they contribute to semantic interpretation.8 1.1  Verbs of inherently directed motion and their goal/source orientation If these claims regarding syntactic and semantic (in)visibility are correct, they allow for a straightforward explanation of a property of verbs of inherently directed motion (vidms) that, as far as I am aware, has not received an explicit account to date. Compare the two sentences with the vidm return in (11); they differ only in that there is a goal preposition in (11a) and a source preposition in (11b). (11) a. John returned to the party at 10PM. b. John returned from the party at 10PM.

The temporal modifier at 10PM tells us the time at which the return event takes place. In (11a) to the party tells us the goal of the return event, while from the party in (11b) tells us the source of the return event. If we consider John’s location at 10PM, the time at which the return event takes place, a difference between sentences (11a) and (11b) becomes salient; in (11a), John’s location is at the party, while in (11b) it is not. To put it another way, the goal pp tells us John’s location at the time of the return event, the source pp does not. To make sense of these facts, I assume that vidms inherently express a trajectory of motion (Cappelle & Declerck 2005: 89; Levin 1993: 264). Furthermore, I claim that they also express a point on that trajectory where the event they describe takes place. The vidm return expresses that the event it describes takes place at the end of the trajectory; it is a goal-oriented vidm. Consider (11a) again. The return event takes place at 10PM. John is at the party at 10PM. The party is at the end of the trajectory of motion. John is at the end of the trajectory when the event

.  I assume that these (in)visibility effects result from processes that occur prior to lexical insertion into the syntactic derivation. It is not at all clear that Hale & Keyser (1993: 97) would agree with this: “[It is not] impossible to imagine what it might mean, in our framework, for Move α to “apply in the lexicon.” Suppose it means that the process applies within lexical items “prior to lexical insertion.” And imagine further that the derivation of a lexical item (i.e., the chain structure defined by incorporation in the lexicon) is invisible in what we have been referring to as s-syntax. It would then be a simple empirical matter to decide whether there are, in this sense, syntactic processes that “apply in the lexicon.” But, so far as we can tell, the results are negative, or at least inconclusive, in this regard.”



Chapter 4.  A lexical derivation of achievements 

takes place. Thus, the return event takes place at the end of the trajectory of motion. We can determine that the return event does not take place at the beginning of the trajectory of motion by considering sentence (11b) again. The return event takes place at 10PM. John is not at the party at 10PM. The party is at the beginning of the trajectory of motion. John is not at the beginning of the trajectory when the event takes place. Thus, the return event does not take place at the beginning of the trajectory of motion. Return is a goal-oriented vidm. Another goal-oriented vidm is come, illustrated in (12). (12) a. John came to the party at 10PM. b. John came from the party at 10PM.

Interestingly, just as there are goal-oriented vidms, there are source-oriented vidms as well; these are vidms that express a trajectory of motion in which the event they describe takes place at the beginning of the trajectory. Two examples are given below in (13) and (14). (13) a. John departed to the airport at 10PM. b. John departed from the airport at 10PM. (14) a. John escaped to the party at 10PM. b. John escaped from the party at 10PM.

Consider (13a) with the goal pp. The departing event takes place at 10PM. John is not at the airport at 10PM. The airport is at the end of the trajectory. John is not at the end of the trajectory when the event takes place. The departing event does not take place at the end of the trajectory of motion. Consider (13b) with the source pp. The departing event takes place at 10PM. John is at the airport at 10PM. The airport is at the beginning of the trajectory of motion. John is at the beginning of the trajectory of motion when the event takes place. The departing event takes place at the beginning of the trajectory of motion. Depart (and escape) is a source-oriented vidm.9 .  Arrive is a vidm and possibly a goal-oriented one: John arrived from the airport at noon. John is not at the airport at noon. The difficulty with this vidm is that it is not compatible with the goal preposition, so the full range of tests cannot be run. Although it is compatible with a location preposition: John arrived at the airport at noon. This indicates that John was at the airport at noon. A similar constraint is found with the vidms leave and enter as well. Go shows the inverse constraint; it does not allow a source preposition: John went to/*from the party at noon. Although, it does improve when both a source and a goal preposition are present: John went from the party to the bar at noon. The morphology of ascend and descend suggest that ascend should be goal-oriented and descend should be source-oriented, although by their interpretation in the presence of goal and source prepositions, their orientations are not exactly clear. This may be because, as noted in Hay, Kennedy & Levin (1999: 139–140), ascend and descend are atelic verbs of motion. These are some questions that still remain regarding the orientation

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

I claim that goal-oriented vidms have the initial lexical representation in (15a) and source-oriented vidms have the initial lexical representation in (15b). Essentially, they are denominal verbs.10 (15)

a.

V′

V

b. VP

NP

V

PP PGOAL



VP NP

V′ V



V′

V′ V

NP

PP PSOURCE

N return

NP N depart

The orientation of a vidm is determined by the abstract P, which is either specified as a goal or a source; a goal-oriented vidm has an abstract goal P as part of its lexical representational structure and a source-oriented vidm has an abstract source P as part of its lexical representation. Note, moreover, that vidms are achievements. They only allow an iterative interpretation in the stop-control construction, illustrated in (16); almost elicits an unambiguous counterfactual interpretation, illustrated in (17); and it takes x-time elicits an unambiguous start-time interpretation, illustrated in (18). (16) a. John stopped returning (at noon). b. John stopped departing (at noon). (17) a. John almost returned. b. John almost departed. (18) a. It took John ten minutes to return. b. It took John ten minutes to depart.

Reconsider the structures from (15) above in (19) below, after the addition of event features and after conflation takes place. of vidms; I take the examples in the body of the text as paradigmatic and the properties of the vidms mentioned in this footnote to be explainable by independent lexical idiosyncrasies. .  In Hale & Keyser (2002: 191) they propose a slightly different structure for arrive.



Chapter 4.  A lexical derivation of achievements  V(AspP)〈ie〉

(19)

V(Asp) 〈ie〉 V P 〈fe〉 N



return/depart

Asp 〈ie〉 V

VP NP

V′ t

PP〈fe〉 t

PGOAL/SOURCE 〈fe〉

NP t

vidms have the structure of achievements; the 〈ie〉 feature is visible to syntax, while the 〈 fe〉 feature is not. Nevertheless, both the 〈ie〉 and the 〈 fe〉 features are visible to semantics, as they are telic predicates. There are at least two types of vidms: goaland source-oriented. These two types show clear differences in interpretation that can be explained by an abstract goal or source P in their lexical representational structures.11 This is essentially the same structure as the location verbs from above; there is an abstract P invisible to narrow syntax, but yet it contributes to semantic interpretation. A Hale & Keyser lexical derivational approach offers a promising account of these facts. We need only assume that only the highest elements in the structure are visible to syntax, while all are visible to semantics. Consider one way to think about this syntactic invisibility and semantic visibility from a minimalist perspective. These processes in the lexicon might be one mechanism by which the language faculty gets more to the CI interface at lower computational costs. For if only a small part of a complex lexical item is visible to narrow syntactic operations, search space for operations is reduced, and along with it the computational load. At the same time, all of the elements are, in principle, accessible for interpretation, at no higher computational costs. This would not be surprising, if, in fact, the language faculty were optimized primarily to meet the needs of the CI interface (Chomsky 2005: 4, 13, 2007: 13), since packaging more into less, as is the case here, is driven by interpretation.

.  Hale & Keyser (2002: 19) recognize a semantic difference between location and locatum verbs and attribute it to semantic differences of their respective abstract Ps. See footnote 15. I essentially extend their proposal by observing two other semantic differences and by attributing them to different semantic properties of the abstract Ps of goal- and source-oriented vidms.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

1.1.1  Achievements and event structure modifiers again Let us consider the interpretation of almost with the vidms discussed in the previous section in more detail. The relevant examples are repeated below in (20). (20) a. John almost returned. b. John almost departed.

For sentence (20a), it is easy to confuse a counterfactual interpretation with an incompletive interpretation. Consider the following situation: John has left a party upset with his girlfriend who has stayed behind. After walking away from the house where the party is taking pace, John then turns around and begins to walk back toward it. Imagine he walks back toward the house for five minutes, and without actually making it to the house, decides not to return to the party. One might argue that this is an incompletive interpretation of almost with return. However, as we determined above, the return event itself does not even take place until the end of the trajectory of motion, which, in this case, would be the house where the party is taking place. Therefore, in this scenario the return event does not take place at all, as John never reaches the house. The return event almost takes place; the interpretation is counterfactual. In the same house-party context, we can imagine that John has left the party and wonders if he should return to make peace with his girlfriend. Perhaps there is one moment where he thinks he should, but then instantly continues on his way leaving the party behind. This context is also consistent with the interpretation of (20a), and again no return took place; the interpretation is counterfactual. That there are these vague interpretations is consistent with a counterfactual interpretation, as noted in chapter three, section 1.1.1. The content of these vague interpretations is a function of the particular lexical meaning of return; that is, from being a goal-oriented vidm. Consider the interpretation of (20b) in the following context: John is at a party and wants to leave. He starts walking toward the door, but right before he opens it, he is called back. This is a counterfactual interpretation consistent with sentence (20b). So is a context where John is on the couch at the party and considers leaving but does not make any move toward the door, but just thinks about it; then, he decides to stay. Again this is a counterfactual interpretation. These are both vague readings resulting from a counterfactual interpretation. A context that is not consistent with the interpretation of (20b) is one in which John starts on his way home. Pragmatically, this may correspond to him opening the door, or opening the door and stepping outside, or opening the door, stepping outside and getting into his car. The exact moment at which his departure begins may vary, but once it begins, (20b) is no longer consistent with the context. Both return and depart are achievements, yet the situations consistent with the counterfactual interpretation differ, because of the lexical semantic interpretations of



Chapter 4.  A lexical derivation of achievements 

these verbs. Specifically, because return is goal-oriented, i.e., the event takes place at the end of a trajectory of motion; and depart is source-oriented, i.e., the event takes place at the beginning of a trajectory of motion. Their respective orientations are shown schematically in (21a) and (21b); the line represents the trajectory of motion. (21)

a. return event b.



depart event



These varied interpretations of almost with vidms is not entirely anomalous. Con­ sider the interpretations of almost with the achievements open and close in (22). (22) a. John almost closed the door. b. John almost opened the door.

Essentially close in (22a) patterns with return, and open in (22b) patterns with depart with respect to the interpretation of almost. This comes out when considering the path of the door in each case. If John almost closes a door, he can think about getting up and closing it, without actually getting up and touching the door. Or he can get up, grab the door and push it until there is a foot wide opening. Only when the door reaches the end of the path, is it closed. All else is almost closed. If John almost opens a door, again he can be thinking about it but never get up and actually touch the door; he can get up and be about to put his hand on the knob, but then decide not to; or he can get up grab the knob and pull on the door with no results. Nevertheless, as soon as any space between the door and the frame begins to show, sentence (22b) is no longer felicitous. The schemas similar to the ones for return and depart serve for close and open in (23a) and (23b) respectively; the lines in this case represent the path of the door. (23)

a. close event b.





open event

The lexical semantic properties of these achievements affect how these counterfactual interpretations map to real world contexts. The natural counterfactual interpretations are conditioned by the lexical semantics of the verbs in question. Yet importantly only a counterfactual interpretation arises precisely because these

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

predicates are achievements. With this in mind, let us return to the interpretation of almost with the location verbs discussed above; the relevant data are repeated below in (24). (24) a. Jerry almost caged the bird. b. Bill almost shelved the book. c. The sheriff almost jailed the thief.

Note that the abstract P that is conflated has the fundamental semantics that corresponds to overt locational prepositions such as at, in, on (Hale & Keyser 2002: 19). This contributes the interpretation that the verb expresses the final location of the direct object. This already suggests that the contexts available on a counterfactual interpretation of almost with these location verbs will be similar to those with return and close: concretely, with respect to the relation between the direct object and its final location, and what that entails for when the event takes place; the event does not take place until the denotation of the direct object is at, in, on its final location. Therefore, in order to determine whether or not there is an incompletive interpretation with these vidms we should ask the following: Can the objects begin to be at the final location without being there completely? This would be what we expect on an incompletive interpretation. Consider a context for (24a). The bird is sitting at the cage’s entrance, half in and half out, and Jerry runs over to close the door. Certainly this is consistent with the meaning of (24a), but can we say that somehow the bird’s caging had begun but that the bird was not completely caged; it is not clear that we can. This is what we expect from an incompletive interpretation, which is available in a sentence like John almost drank a pitcher of beer. Consider a context for (24b). The book is resting half on and half off the shelf. In this case, has the book begun to be shelved, without being completely shelved? Or, is the book shelved? It seems to me that the book is shelved, although perhaps improperly. It is not clear what it means for the book to have begun to be shelved without being completely shelved. It seems that the book is shelved or it is not; this is indicative of an event that begins and ends at the same time, i.e., an achievement. The interpretation of almost with location verbs is an unambiguous counterfactual interpretation.

2.  More lexical representational structures 2.1  Monadic lexical projections Hale & Keyser (1993: 73, 2002: 15) argue that unergative verbs have the structure in (25).



Chapter 4.  A lexical derivation of achievements 

(25)

V V



N laugh



There are two possibilities for the assignment of event features here; either there is an 〈ie〉 feature on V or there is an 〈 fe〉 feature on V. The structure in (25) is monadic, much like the highest V in the representational structure of location verbs. Essentially the presence of this (monadic) V is responsible for the transitivity of location verbs and unergatives. Given the same structural roles for this monadic V, I will assume that it introduces the 〈ie〉 feature in (25) just as I assumed for location verbs in (9). Consequently, and for convenience, I refer to this highest V that appears with the 〈ie〉 feature as V-AspP. For, minimally in this respect, V-AspP in the lexicon and AspP in narrow syntax share this one property; they always appear with the 〈ie〉 feature.12 Since there is only an 〈ie〉 feature, we expect that these predicates are activities.13 Observe in (26) that this expectation is met. (26)

a. b. c. d.

John laughed for ten minutes. John almost laughed. It took John ten minutes to laugh. John stopped laughing.

The durative does not force an iterative interpretation of the predicate in (26a); almost elicits an unambiguous counterfactual interpretation in (26b); it takes x-time elicits an unambiguous start-time interpretation in (26c); and there is a single event interpretation in the stop-control construction in (26d). Hale & Keyser (2002: 14) provide a list of verbs belonging to this monadic type. I show some of the verbs from their list in (27).14 (27) cough, crawl, dance, glitter, glow, jump, limp, run, scream, sleep, sneeze, speak, sweat, talk, walk, yell

.  It is worth noting that in Hale & Keyser (1993: 69) they assume that the structural representation of a V taking a vp complement, as in (4), (15) above or (29) below is a “causal” one. In a sense, the highest V is associated with CAUSE. In the present system, it would be unexpected that this highest V is CAUSE, for as we saw in chapter two, section 3 in narrow syntax, CAUSE does not contribute to the aspectual interpretation of the predicate. Therefore it is unlikely that CAUSE would bear the 〈ie〉 feature in the lexical representation. .  Note that if 〈 fe〉 were the more appropriate event feature to appear on this monadic V, the prediction would be the same, since there would be only one event feature. .  Taken from Hale & Keyser (2002: 14).

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

The verbs in (27) are unergative verbs, which typically head predicates that are activities. They do not surface in achievement predicates. This is predicted from the combination of the independent claims regarding their lexical representational structure made by Hale & Keyser and the assumptions made here regarding the correct representation of es. In as much as this prediction is well founded, I take it to support the overall approach to the lexical derivation of achievements developed here. 2.2  Locatum verbs Locatum verbs represent another class of denominal verbs. Some examples are given in (28). (28)

a. b. c. d.

Joe saddled the horse. Mary powered her nose. Bill watered the garden. Rick greased the chain.

According to Hale & Keyser these verbs have the same fundamental lexical representational structure as location verbs.15 I give this structure below in (29). (29)

V-AspP V-Asp

VP NP

V′ V

PP P





NP N cage

We saw that location verbs were achievements. Because of the same underlying structure we might expect that locatum verbs are also achievements. However, it is

.  The only difference lies in the semantics of the P head. The semantic properties of the P in the location verbs correspond to the overt locational prepositions at, in, on, and the semantic properties of the P in locatum verbs correspond to the overt “possessional” with. (Hale & Keyser 1993: 19).



Chapter 4.  A lexical derivation of achievements 

not the case that all locatum verbs are achievements. Consider the locatum verbs in (30) to (32). (30) a. Mary powdered her nose for ten minutes. b. John buttered a piece of bread for ten minutes. (31) a. Mary almost powdered her nose. b. John almost buttered a piece of bread. (32) a. Mary stopped powdering her nose. b. John stopped buttering the piece of bread.

The durative does not force an iterative interpretation of the predicate in (30); almost elicits an unambiguous counterfactual interpretation in (31); and there is a single event interpretation in the stop-control construction in (32).16 These verbs behave like activities.17 This entails that only an 〈ie〉 feature is present in the lexical representational structure. No 〈 fe〉 feature is present.18 The lexical representational structure of locatum verbs differs from that of location verbs in that in the former there is no 〈 fe〉 feature on the abstract P, and in the latter there is. This variation with respect to the presence vs. absence of the 〈 fe〉 feature on a P recalls the difference between goal prepositions and directional prepositions discussed in chapter three, section 3.1. Location and locatum verbs

.  I conspicuously leave out the it takes x-time construction as it seems to elicit an end-time interpretation. It may be the case that this is particularly salient in the same way that it is with the following sentence, which contains an activity predicate: It took John ten minutes to run. Run behaves like an activity under most conditions, but in a situation where there is a habitual end to the running event, run can show some properties of accomplishments. The source of this shift may be due to world knowledge (Dowty 1979: 61), or it may be the construction itself. The same may be occurring with the it takes x-time construction with these locatum verbs. Note, nevertheless, that crucially the start-time interpretation is also available. See also footnote 18. .  Mateu (2002: 14) also notes that some locatum verbs are atelic. Furthermore, he ties the atelic interpretation of location/locatum verbs to the central coincidence relation expressed by the abstract P, and the telic interpretation to the terminal coincidence relation expressed by the abstract P (Mateu 2002: 12). .  The locatum verb tar seems to elicit an incompletive interpretation with almost, and an end-time interpretation in the it takes x-time construction. It may be the case that the lexical semantics of this verb is playing a role and what initially seems to be an incompletive and endtime interpretation are really a counterfactual and start-time interpretation. At least, it is not clear that almost and the it takes x-time construction with these locatum verbs are ambiguous. These locatum verbs may simply be achievements and be showing the pattern of interpretations noted for other achievements in section 1.1.1 above.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

have similar structural representations, but they differ by the presence vs. absence of 〈 fe〉 on P.19 2.3  Deadjectival verbs Deadjectival verbs play an important role in Hale & Keyser’s theory. It is therefore important to note their aspectual properties and how the present approach to es in combination with Hale & Keyser’s theory accounts for them. Consider a partial list of deadjectival verbs in (33).20 (33) break, clear, cool, darken, enlarge, freeze, harden, lengthen, lower, narrow, redden, shorten, soften, tighten, widen

There are two important points to discuss with respect to these deadjectival verbs: 1. They can be both transitive and intransitive; and 2. Many of them vary aspectually between an activity interpretation and an achievement interpretation; many of them are degree achievements. Importantly, also, the (in)transitivity of a verb does not affect its aspectual variability (see Hay, Kennedy & Levin 1999 and chapter two, section 3). The fact that these deadjectival verbs can surface as transitive or intransitive becomes relevant once we consider the two structures assigned to them by Hale & Keyser. The transitive is in (34a) and the intransitive in (34b).21 (34)

a.

V-AspP

V-Asp

b. DP

V DP the screen



V

V′ V



the screen A

V V

A clear

clear

.  It is not unexpected that we find this type of variation with respect to a feature. See Chomsky (2000: 109, 2004: 122) who discusses the presence vs. absence of the epp/occ feature. See also chapter five, where I discuss language variation in terms of the presence vs. absence of an element. .  List taken from Hale & Keyser (2002: 16). .  Note that in (34a) I have modified Hale & Keyser’s structure slightly. My V-AspP is their V1, and my V is their V2.



Chapter 4.  A lexical derivation of achievements 

For the structure in (34a) there is no problem accounting for the achievement interpretation if we assume that the 〈 fe〉 feature appears on V, and of course the 〈ie〉 feature appears on V-Asp. (Note that this initial representational structure parallels the aspectual syntactic structure of standard accomplishments in narrow syntax, a positive result.) Conflation takes place and the result is the expected event feature configuration of achievements. The potential problem arises with the structure of the intransitive in (34b); since there is no V-AspP, there can be no 〈ie〉. Therefore we would predict that the intransitive form of these verbs could not be achievements, contrary to what is the case. The problem with the intransitive dissolves if we assume that V-AspP is still present; if V-AspP is still present, 〈ie〉 can be present and we can account for the achievement interpretation of the intransitive forms. In this case, of course, we would depart from Hale & Keyser’s account. Nevertheless, it is not clear how much of a departure leaving V-AspP in the intransitive form would be. Consider their (2002) account of middles. They note that a key property of middles is the absence of an external argument. In their system, that corresponds to the absence of V (i.e., V-AspP). However, as they note, location verbs can form middles as well, illustrated in (35). (35) a. Birds cage easily. b. Encyclopedias shelve easily.

Hale & Keyser (2002: 29) claim that location verbs do not detransitivize because in order to do so the highest V (i.e., V-AspP) would have to be removed and in doing so, there would remain a prepositional projection. Consequently, to account for the ability of location verbs to form middles, they assume that the highest V (i.e., V-AspP) loses its case assigning abilities (Hale & Keyser 2002: 43). This causes the inner subject in the specifier of the inner vp to raise to subject position for case in narrow syntax. What this entails is that the middles of location verbs do not have an external argument, although V (i.e., V-AspP) is still present. I assume that we can adopt the same strategy for the intransitive forms of the deadjectival verbs in (35).22 Thus, both the transitive and intransitive deadjectival verbs have the same initial lexical representation as in (34a). The only difference is whether V-AspP can license an external argument or not; this licensing may reduce to whether V-AspP maintains or loses its ability to assign case, as Hale & Keyser (2002) suggest for the middles of location verbs. .  It is worth noting also, that, although I do not assume that this upper V-AspP is causative, Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995: 82–83) assume that CAUSE is present in both the causative and inchoative alternates. Thus, it is not unprecedented that both the causative and inchoative forms have the same amount of structure.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

Finally, recall that a subset of the deadjectival verbs from (33) show variation between an achievement and activity interpretation; these are so-called degree achievements. To capture this alternation, we need only assume the optional pre­ sence of 〈 fe〉 on the head of V in the initial lexical representational structure. When 〈 fe〉 is present, the result is an achievement interpretation. When 〈 fe〉 is not present, the result is an activity interpretation. This move parallels the account of the aspectual difference between location and locatum verbs discussed above with respect to the presence vs. absence of 〈 fe〉 on P. See also footnote 19.

3.  A prediction: The lack of accomplishments in the lexicon The combination of Hale & Keyser’s approach to the derivation of denominal and deadjectival verbs and the present proposal of event features offers a promising way to account for the range or properties surrounding achievement predicates. Moreover, this approach makes a surprising prediction: there are no accomplishments in the lexicon. First, I discuss how this prediction falls out from the present approach, and then I test it by discussing the aspectual properties of idioms. 3.1  Formulating the prediction Recall the initial lexical representational structures of location and deadjectival verbs. These are repeated below in (36a) and (36b) respectively. (36)

a.

V-AspP〈ie〉

V-Asp 〈ie〉

b. VP

NP

V-Asp 〈ie〉

PP〈fe〉 P 〈fe〉



VP〈fe〉 NP

V′ V



V-AspP〈ie〉

V′ V 〈fe〉

VP

AP A clear

N cage

Now recall the aspectual structure of pp-accomplishments and standard accomplishments in narrow syntax. These are repeated below in (37a) and (37b) respectively.



Chapter 4.  A lexical derivation of achievements 

(37)

...vP

a.

v′

DP

v′

DP

v

v

AspP〈ie〉

AspP〈ie〉

VP

Asp 〈ie〉

Asp 〈ie〉

DP

VP〈fe〉

V′

V 〈fe〉

V



...vP

b.

DP

PP〈fe〉 P 〈fe〉



DP

The aspectual syntactic structures in (36) are fundamentally the same as the aspectual syntactic structures in (37). Specifically, the initial lexical representational structures in (36) look like accomplishments; the event features are in the relevant structural relations. In fact, if these structures are sent to the semantic component for interpretation as they are, there is no obvious reason why they would not be interpreted as accomplishments, based on our conclusions from chapter three. However, also recall from chapter three, section 3.2 that the calculation of the aspectual properties of a predicate does not take place until Transfer to the CI interface, at the vP phase. This is not until narrow syntax. There is therefore time for operations to take place on these initial lexical representational structures before Transfer to CI. In fact, the relevant operation comes directly from a fundamental part of Hale & Keyser’s (1993, 2002) lexical derivational approach to these denominal/deadjectival verbs, namely, conflation. As a result of conflation, the accomplishment-like initial lexical representational structures are lost, as illustrated in (38). (38)

a.

V-AspP〈ie〉 V-Asp 〈ie〉 V P 〈fe〉

N





Asp 〈ie〉 V

VP NP

V-Asp 〈ie〉 V′

t

V 〈fe〉

PP〈fe〉 t

P 〈fe〉

V-AspP〈ie〉

b.

NP t

A

Asp 〈ie〉 V 〈fe〉

VP〈fe〉 NP

V′ t

AP A

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

These are the structures that enter narrow syntax, after conflation takes place, with the event feature configuration already formed. Therefore, when Transfer to CI takes place, given the presence of an event feature configuration and the relation between the event features at that time, an achievement interpretation will result. Calculation of event features takes place in narrow syntax. Conflation will always take place when there are structures like the ones in (37) in the lexicon (Hale & Keyser 1993, 2002), ultimately operating on the relation between the event features such that by the time the relation between the event features is important for determining the aspectual type of the predicate, their relation will preclude an accomplishment interpretation. Thus, it follows from this approach that there are no accomplishments in the lexicon. If this turns out to be true, it would be a surprising and revealing result about the structure of the lexicon and the role of syntax in the formation of accomplishments. Let us test the prediction. 3.2  Testing the prediction: Accomplishment idioms One way to test this prediction is to look at idioms.23 Phrasal idioms, e.g., pull one’s leg, kick the bucket etc. have enough structure such that they could in principle bear the range of distinct aspectual properties that derive the distinct aspectual predicates types. In this respect, they are relevant for testing the prediction. Although this so, it is important to note that, as argued by Nunberg et al. (1994), phrasal idioms can be broken up into two distinct groups: idiomatically combining expressions (ices) and idiomatic phrases (ips). The meanings of ices (e.g., take advantage, pull strings) “are distributed among their parts” (Nunberg et al. 1994: 497). Consider the ice spill the beans: “When we hear spill the beans used to mean ‘divulge the information’, for example, we can assume that spill denotes the relation of divulging and beans the information that is divulged…’ (Nunberg et al. 1994: 497). In contrast, ips (e.g., kick the bucket, saw logs) “do not distribute their meanings to their components.” (Nunberg et al. 1994: 491). With respect to saw logs, there is “…no decomposition of the activity of sleeping into elements that correspond to the meanings of the parts of the expression…” (Nunberg et al. 1994: 497). ices can be semantically decomposed into idiomatic parts; ips cannot. The decomposed idiomatic parts of ices can also be modified (as long as the semantics of the modification is consistent with the meaning of the idiom) and targeted by various operations, while this is not the case for ips, since they do not .  There is no immediate reason, that I can see, why this prediction should not hold for event nominals as well. There should be no accomplishment nominals. All lexically derived eventive nominals should be activities or achievements. I do not pursue this prediction here.



Chapter 4.  A lexical derivation of achievements 

have idiomatic parts (Nunberg et al. 1994: 497). Contrast the ice in (39) with the ip in (40). (39) a. John pulled a variety of strings (so Bill would get the job). b. Those strings, he wouldn’t pull for you.24 (40) a. #John kicked the whole bucket. b. #The bucket, John didn’t kick.

As we will see below, the contrast between ices and ips is relevant in as much as the only idioms that show some pattering with accomplishments are ices. Glasbey (2007: 10) argues that ices, but not ips, show the same process of aspectual composition as their non-idiomatic counterparts. On the other hand, she suggests that for ips “it is more natural to think of aspectual information being attached to the complete lexical phrase, i.e., stored in long term memory.” (Glasbey 2007: 10). Nunberg et al. (1994: 497) make a similar assumption: ips are “expressions whose idiomatic interpretations cannot be distributed over their parts and which must therefore be entered in the lexicon as complete phrases.” Adopting these assumptions regarding ips, our prediction becomes more precise: we predict that there are no accomplishment ips. On the other hand, if Glasbey (2007) is correct in that the aspectual properties of ices are derived via the same aspectual process that non-idiomatic verb phrases are, then we can expect that there are accomplishment ices, since there are nonidiomatic accomplishments. The existence of ice accomplishments nevertheless would not necessarily constitute a counterexample to the claim that there are no accomplishments in the lexicon; for, if the aspectual composition of (non-idiomatic) accomplishments relies on syntax in some way, and if the aspectual properties of ices are derived via the same processes as their non-idiomatic counterparts, then syntax must be playing a role in the formation of accomplishment ices as well. As I will argue below, syntax plays a crucial role in the formation (and interpretation) of accomplishments.25 The discussion proceeds in the following way. In section 3.2.1, I look at idioms that contain predicates which are interpreted non-idiomatically as accomplishments. I will take this as a starting point since it has been put forth that “any aspectual class of

.  Example (39b) taken from Nunberg et al. (1994: 501). .  Note that Glasbey’s (2007) assumptions regarding aspectual compositionality are different from those assumed here. She adopts Krifka’s (1992) model of aspectual composition. She does not claim explicitly that syntax plays a crucial role in aspectual composition. On the other hand, McGinnis (2002: 667–668) claims that aspect is a structural component of meaning and the structural component of meaning interacts with syntax.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

non-idiomatic VPs also contains idiomatic VPs.” (McGinnis 2002: 667). Neverthe­ less, we will observe that there are mismatches between the aspectual class of non-idiomatic VPs and their corresponding idiomatic VPs (see also Glasbey 2003, 2007; Mateu & Espinal 2007). In fact, we will see that none of the idioms discussed behave unequivocally like accomplishments. In section 3.2.2, I discuss potential accomplishment idiom candidates that have been put forth by Glasbey (2003) and McGinnis (2002). I note that in some ways they pattern with accomplishments, and in some ways they do not. In this way, accomplishment idioms contrast with activity, achievement and stative idioms, for which there is unequivocal evidence. Moreover, we will see that those idioms that pattern with accomplishments are ices; none are ips. In section 3.2.3, I conclude by suggesting that although there is evidence that some ices are accomplishments, there is reason to believe that their accomplishment properties result (at least in part) from a syntactic influence. 3.2.1  Idioms that superficially resemble (pp-)accomplishments According to McGinnis (2002: 667), “any aspectual class of non-idiomatic VPs also contains idiomatic VPs”. This claim provides a starting point for the search for accomplishment idioms. What we will see, nevertheless, is that although the idioms that we test contain predicates that are accomplishments on their non-idiomatic interpretation, they are not accomplishments on their idiomatic interpretation. Consider the non-idiomatic pp-accomplishments in (41) and the structurally similar idioms in (42). (41) a. Rick drove Dave up the mountain. b. Frank ran Bill into the barn. (42) a. Rick drove Dave up the wall. b. The enormous workload ran Bill into the ground.26

To drive someone up the wall means “to irritate someone unbearably” according to The Penguin dictionary of English idioms (Gulland & Hinds-Howell 2002: 156). So, (42a) means that Rick irritated Dave unbearably. To run someone (or something) into the ground, means “to exhaust someone or something” according to The Penguin dictionary of English idioms (Gulland & Hinds-Howell 2002: 17). So, (42b) means that the enormous workload exhausted Bill. Consider the interpretation of the durative phrase with both non-idiomatic sentences in (43). .  I eliminate an agentive subject here to ensure an interpretation that is farthest from any possible literal interpretation. For in Frank ran Bill into the ground. it is easy enough to imagine Frank being a coach, or a sergeant who, through extensive running exercises, exhausts Bill. In this case, the run of run into the ground takes on quite a literal sense, something we want to avoid in order to ensure that we are testing the idiomatic interpretation.



Chapter 4.  A lexical derivation of achievements 

(43) a. Rick drove Dave up the mountain b. Frank ran Bill into the barn

#for a hour.27 #for an hour.

There is no single event interpretation in either case;28 this is the result of the predicates being telic. Now consider the idiomatic sentences with the durative in (44). (44) a. Rick drove Dave up the wall b. The enormous workload ran Bill into the ground

#for an hour. #for an hour.

The durative is incompatible on a single event interpretation in each case. There is only an iterative interpretation. In (44a) Rick irritated Dave once, then again and so on for an hour. Likewise, in (44b), only an iterative interpretation results; the enormous workload exhausted Bill once, then again and so on for a week. These predicates are telic, like their non-idiomatic counterparts. Consider another test for telicity: the progressive-to-perfect entailment. The entailment holds with atelic predicates, but fails with telic predicates (Dowty 1979: 57). (45) a. Rick is driving Dave up the mountain. Rick has driven Dave up the mountain. b. Frank is running Bill into the barn. Frank has run Bill into the barn.

An arrow (→) indicates entailment, and a crossed out arrow ( ) indicates lack of entailment. There is no entailment in either case. This confirms that these are telic predicates. Now consider the idioms in (46). (46) a. Rick is driving Dave up the wall. Rick has driven Dave up the wall. b. The enormous workload is running Bill into the ground. The enormous workload has run Bill into the ground.

In both cases the entailment fails, confirming that these idioms are headed by telic predicates. Now let us consider whether they are accomplishments or achievements. First, note that the non-idiomatic sentences are accomplishments. Consider the interpretation of almost with them in (47). (47) a. Rick almost drove Dave up the mountain. b. Frank almost ran Bill into the barn.

.  I ignore any result state interpretation that may be available for the durative in these and all following idioms, since it is not aspectually relevant. .  I should note that drive up the mountain is an aspectually ambiguous predicate. It behaves both like an activity and an accomplishment. I am ignoring the activity interpretation here.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

Almost is ambiguous here, as expected. In (47a) there is an interpretation in which Rick never started driving Dave up the mountain; Dave took the cable car, for example. This is the counterfactual interpretation. There is also an interpretation in which Rick began to drive Dave up the mountain, but then stopped 100 feet short. This is the incompletive interpretation. In (47b) there is an interpretation in which Frank was about to grab Bill (his favorite goat) and run him into the barn, but decided that Bill should learn to do it himself, so he did not grab him; the running of Bill into the barn event never began. This is the counterfactual interpretation. There is also an interpretation in which Frank grabbed Bill and started running toward the barn, and when Bill was half in, Frank stopped. This is the incompletive interpretation. These non-idiomatic predicates behave like accomplishments. Consider now the interpretation of almost with the idioms in (48). (48) a. Rick almost drove Dave up the wall. b. The enormous workload almost ran Bill into the ground.

Almost here is not ambiguous; there is only a counterfactual interpretation. It is not the case in (48a) that Rick began to irritate Dave but then did not irritate him completely. Rick either irritated Dave or he did not; in this case, Rick did not irritate Dave, he almost did. Likewise, it is not the case in (48b) that the enormous workload began to exhaust Bill, but then did not exhaust him completely. The enormous workload did not exhaust him, it almost did. Almost unambiguously elicits a counterfactual interpretation with these idioms; these idioms appear to be achievements. Before confirming this, consider first the non-idiomatic sentences in the stop-control construction in (49). (49) a. Rick stopped driving Dave up the mountain. b. Frank stopped running Bill into the barn.

As these predicates are accomplishments a single event interpretation is available. In (49a) this interpretation amounts to Rick starting to drive Dave up the mountain, but stopping before he finished driving him up the mountain. In (49b), Frank started to run Bill into the barn, but stopped before he completely ran Bill into the barn. Consider the idioms in the stop-control construction in (50). (50) a. Rick stopped driving Dave up the wall. b. ??The enormous workload stopped running Bill into the ground.

(50a) can only mean Rick stopped repeatedly irritating Dave. It cannot mean that Rick began to irritate Dave, but stopped before he finished irritating him. In (50b), the non-agentive nature of the enormous workload makes this sentence a bit odd. Note that by changing the subject to an agentive one, the construction improves, as illustrated in (51).



Chapter 4.  A lexical derivation of achievements 

(51) The old boss stopped running Bill into the ground.

As long as we can keep an idiomatic interpretation of (51) in mind, it can only mean that the old boss stopped repeatedly exhausting Bill. It cannot mean that the old boss began to exhaust Bill, but stopped before he finished exhausting him. That there is only an iterative interpretation available for these idioms in the stop-control construction confirms our conclusion from above that these idioms are achievements. Although these idioms look like pp-accomplishments on the surface, they are not. Let us test idioms that superficially resemble standard accomplishments. Consider the non-idiomatic standard accomplishments in (52) and the super­ ficially similar idioms in (53). (52) a. Sam ate his hot dogs. b. Sue tied the bowtie (for her boyfriend). (53) a. Sam ate his words. b. Sue tied the knot (with that Irish guy).

To eat one’s words means “to suffer a humiliation by having to withdraw a statement that has been proved wrong” according to The Penguin dictionary of English idioms (Gulland & Hinds-Howell 2002: 188). So, (53a) means that Sam suffered a humiliation by having to withdraw a statement that had been proved wrong. To tie the knot means “to get married” according to The Penguin dictionary of English idioms (Gulland & Hinds-Howell 2002: 201). So, (53b) means that Sue got married (with that Irish guy). Consider the interpretation of the durative phrase with both non-idiomatic sentences in (54). (54) a. Sam ate his hot dogs b. Sue tied the bowtie

#for ten minutes. #for ten minutes.

In both (54a) and (54b), the durative is out on a single event interpretation. Now consider the interpretation of the durative with the idioms in (55). (55) a. Sam ate his words b. Sue tied the knot

#for ten minutes. #for ten minutes.

Like their non-idiomatic counterparts, the durative phrase is incompatible with these idioms on a single event interpretation. It does not seem like there is any iterative interpretation available in (55a), whereas there may be in (55b), but since it is unlikely that Sue will get married repeatedly in a time span of ten minutes, the durative is incompatible. These idioms seem to be telic. Consider the progressiveto-perfect entailment with the non-idiomatic sentences in (56).

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

(56) a. Sam is eating his hot dogs. Sam has eaten his hot dogs. b. Sue is tying the bowtie (for her boyfriend). Sue has tied the bowtie (for her boyfriend).

In neither case does the entailment hold. This confirms that these predicates are telic. Consider the progressive-to-perfect entailment with the idioms in (57). (57) a. Sam is eating his words. Sam has eaten his words. b. Sue is tying the knot (with that Irish guy). Sue has tied the knot (with that Irish guy).

Like their non-idiomatic counterparts, the entailment does not hold with these idioms. This confirms that these idioms are telic. Let us see whether they are accomplishments or achievements. First, consider the interpretation of almost with the non-idiomatic sentences in (58). (58) a. Sam almost ate his hot dogs. b. Sue almost tied the bowtie (for her boyfriend).

Almost is ambiguous in both of these examples. There is a counterfactual interpretation in (58a) in which Sam almost ate hot dogs, but ate pizza instead. There is also an incompletive interpretation in which Sam began to eat his hot dogs, but did not finish them all. Likewise, in (58b), there is a counterfactual interpretation in which Sue almost tied the bowtie for her boyfriend but decided to let him figure it out on his own, so she did not start to tie it. There is also an incompletive interpretation in which she began to tie the bowtie, but did not finish tying it. Consider the interpretation of almost with the idioms in (59). (59) a. Sam almost ate his words. b. Sue almost tied the knot (with that Irish guy).

With both idioms, almost unambiguously elicits a counterfactual interpretation. In (59a), the only interpretation is that Sam did not suffer a humiliation at all. There is no interpretation in which Sam began to suffer a humiliation, but then did not suffer it all. In (59b), the only interpretation available is that Sue did not get married at all. There is no interpretation in which Sue began to get married, but did not get married all the way. These idioms appear to be achievements. Let us consider the stop-control construction. Consider the non-idiomatic sentences in (60) first. (60) a. Sam stopped eating his hot dogs. b. Sue stopped tying the bowtie (for her boyfriend).



Chapter 4.  A lexical derivation of achievements 

In each of these sentences, there is a single event interpretation available which is indicative of their accomplishment status. In (60a) the single event interpretation is that Sam started to eat his hot dogs, but then stopped before he finished eating them all. In (60b) the single event interpretation is that Sue started to tie the bowtie, but stopped before she finished tying it completely. Consider the idioms in the stop-control construction in (61). (61) a. Sam stopped eating his words. b. Sue stopped tying the knot (with that Irish guy).

These idioms in the stop-control construction only elicit an iterative interpretation, which is indicative of achievements. In (61a), the only available interpretation is that Sam stopped repeatedly suffering humiliations. There is no interpretation in which Sam began to suffer a humiliation, but then stopped before he finished suffering it all; there is no single event interpretation. In (61b), the only available interpretation is that Sue stopped repeatedly getting married (to that Irish guy). There is no interpretation in which Sue began to get married, but then stopped before she finished getting married to him; there is no single event interpretation. On the surface, these idioms look like standard accomplishments, but they are not; they are achievements. 3.2.2  Potential accomplishment idiom candidates Glasbey (2003) and McGinnis (2002) discuss the aspectual properties of idioms, as noted above. They both note that there are accomplishment idioms. I first discuss Glasbey’s in section 3.2.2.1 and then McGinnis’s in section 3.2.2.2. 3.2.2.1  Glasbey’s accomplishment idiom candidates.  Consider the two idioms in (62), which Glasbey (2003) claims are accomplishments.29 (62) a. Patsy poured her heart out to her sister. b. Fred painted a bleak picture (of the situation).

.  The sentences Glasbey (2003: 45–46) uses are “Patsy poured her heart out in two hours, on the phone to her sister.” and “Fred painted a bleak picture of the city in/*for a couple of hours.” For the first idiom, I test only the idiomatic portion alone; that is, I remove on the phone to simplify the example. In the second idiom, in order to control for any non-idiomatic influence, I replace of the city with of the situation. To paint a picture of a city can easily be interpreted nonidiomatically and would then behave like an accomplishment. A non-idiomatic interpretation of paint a picture of a situation is more difficult to get, and therefore would favor an idiomatic interpretation, which is the desired outcome.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

To pour out one’s heart means “to confide all one’s sorrows, fears, anxieties, hopes and joys to another person” according to The Penguin dictionary of English idioms (Gulland & Hinds-Howell 2002: 116). So, (62a) means that Patsy confided all of her feelings (as shorthand) to her sister. To paint a gloomy/sad/bleak/worrying picture means “to admit to a pessimistic outlook” according to The Penguin dictionary of English idioms (Gulland & Hinds-Howell 2002: 269). So, (62b) means that Fred admitted to a pessimistic outlook of the situation. First consider the interpretation of almost with these idioms in (63). (63) a. Patsy almost poured her heart out to her sister. b. Fred almost painted a bleak picture of the situation.

Almost unambiguously elicits a counterfactual interpretation with both of these idioms. In (63a) the only interpretation available is that Patsy did not pour her heart out to her sister at all. There is no interpretation in which she began to pour her heart out, but did not pour it all out; there is no incompletive interpretation. In (63b), the only interpretation available is that Fred did not paint a bleak picture of the situation at all. There is no interpretation in which he began to paint a beak picture of the situation, but did not paint it all; there is no incompletive interpretation. Given the availability of only a counterfactual interpretation in (63), these idioms pattern with either activities or achievements. Consider the progressive-to-perfect entailment in (64). (64) a. Patsy is pouring her heart out to her sister. Patsy has poured her heart out to her sister. b. Fred is painting a bleak picture of the situation. Fred has painted a bleak picture of the situation.

There is no entailment in either case. Consequently, these idioms are telic. Consid­ ering these first two tests, these idioms seem to pattern with achievements. If this is so, then they should only elicit an iterative interpretation in the stop-control construction. Consider these data below in (65). (65) a. Patsy stopped pouring her heart out to her sister. b. Fred stopped painting a bleak picture of the situation.

For both idioms in (65) there is clearly an iterative interpretation available, consistent with these predicates being achievements. However, the question is whether or not there is a single event interpretation, which would be indicative of an accomplishment. For me, the judgments are not very clear; nevertheless, there does seem to be a single event interpretation available, suggesting that they may be accomplishments.30

.  Note that a single event interpretation is also possible with activities as well. Nevertheless, since the progressive-to-perfect entailment test indicates that these predicates are telic, I assume



Chapter 4.  A lexical derivation of achievements 

Consider the data that motivated Glasbey (2003) to claim that both of these idioms are accomplishments.31 (66) a. Patsy poured her heart out in two hours, on the phone to her sister. b. Fred painted a bleak picture of the city in/*for a couple of hours.

In my own judgment, I find the time span adverbial odd on an interpretation in which it modifies the end of the event. That is, I only get an interpretation of (66a) in which after two hours Patsy began to pour her heart out, and of (66b) in which after a couple of hours Fred began to paint a bleak picture of the city. Nevertheless, I have found that other native speakers share Glasbey’s interpretation of the time span adverbial in (66). Considering the time span adverbial and the stop-control construction data in (66) and (65) respectively, we might conclude that these idioms are accomplishments. Nevertheless, given the clear unambiguous counterfactual interpretation of almost from (63), we cannot conclude unequivocally that these idioms are accomplishments. This lack of unequivocal evidence for their accomplishment status is telling in light of the fact that there is unequivocal evidence for activity, achievement and stative idioms. Consider activity idioms first, with the durative phrase in (67). (67) a. b. c. d. e.

John beat around the bush (before he told me what was going on). John dragged his feet (before getting to work). John and Bill shot the breeze (last night at the party). John pulled my leg (before being serious with me). John gave Bill crap (for being late).

for an hour for an hour for an hour for ten minutes for an hour

No iterative interpretation results, as expected from activities. Now consider these idioms in the stop-control construction in (68).

that any apparent single event interpretation results from an available accomplishment interpretation of this idiom. .  Examples (66a) and (66b) are Glasbey’s (2003) examples (7) and (14a) respectively. Her full example (7) is the following: “Fred painted a bleak picture of the city in/*for a couple of hours [lit, id].” where lit stands for literal interpretation and id stands for idiomatic interpretation. Interestingly, Glasbey (2007: 5), marks example (66a), her example (8), with a question mark, noting that it is “marginally acceptable.”

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

(68)

a. b. c. d. e.

John stopped beating around the bush. John stopped dragging his feat. John and Bill stopped shooting the breeze. John stopped pulling my leg. John stopped giving Bill crap.

As expected with activities a single event interpretation is available. Consider the interpretation of almost now. (69) a. b. c. d. e.

John almost beat around the bush (but he got right to the point). John almost dragged his feet (but we didn’t let him). John and Bill almost shot the breeze (but they didn’t meet up). John almost pulled my leg (but he saw I wasn’t in the mood). John almost gave Bill crap (but he didn’t think it was appropriate).

There is only a counterfactual interpretation available here in which the event almost began. These idioms clearly behave like activities. Consider now achievement idioms with the durative phrase. (70)

a. b. c. d. e.

John lost his temper John swallowed his pride John got my goat John jumped on the bandwagon John pulled the wool over my eyes

#for an hour. #for an hour. #for an hour. #for an hour. #for an hour.

Ignoring the interpretation of the durative that modifies a resultant state for these idioms, the only other interpretation is an iterative one; that is, the durative is incompatible on a single event interpretation. Consider the stop-control construction with these idioms in (71). (71)

a. b. c. d. e.

John stopped losing his temper. John stopped swallowing his pride. John stopped getting my goat. John stopped jumping on the bandwagon. John stopped pulling the wool over my eyes.

As expected with achievements there is only an unambiguous iterative interpretation available. Consider the interpretation of almost in (72). (72) a. John almost lost his temper. b. John almost swallowed his pride.



Chapter 4.  A lexical derivation of achievements 

c. John almost got my goat. d. John almost jumped on the bandwagon. e. John almost pulled the wool over my eyes.

In each case, only a counterfactual interpretation is available. These idioms are clearly achievements. Let us consider stative idioms now. Although there are clear stative idioms, there seem to be less of them than activity and achievements idioms.32 Consider stative idioms with the durative phrase in (73). (73) a. b. c.

John was the cat’s pajamas (before Bill showed up). John had mixed feelings John kept me in the dark

for an hour for an hour. for an hour.

Statives are atelic, and as such there is no iterative interpretation when with duratives, just as we see here. I do not consider these stative idioms in the stop-control construction, because it is not entirely clear that they behave systematically: *John stopped being the cats pajamas vs. John stopped keeping me in the dark. We saw in chapter three that sometime statives can pattern with eventives due to the interpretation of an implicit event that gives rise to the state expressed by the stative. This may be the case with the stop-control construction here. More research of statives in clearly warranted. For now, consider the interpretation of almost with these idioms in (74). (74) a. b. c.

??John

was almost the cat’s pajamas. almost had mixed feelings. ?John almost kept me in the dark.

??John

As expected, no clear interpretation arises with statives. Although note that (74c) is more acceptable than the others. I assume that this is the result of almost targeting some implicit event that almost occurred resulting in me being kept in the dark. As a possible paraphrase consider John almost made the decision to keep me in the dark. These are patterns noted in chapter three for non-idiomatic statives as well. This is another way in which idiomatic statives pattern with non-idiomatic statives. The accomplishment idioms that we have discussed so far, according to the tests, are not unequivocal accomplishment idioms. This contrasts with activity,

.  Also, in some instances, the idiomatic portion does not contain a verb; at least, the verb is variable and sometimes this affects interpretation, i.e., John got/was on the ball. John kept/had his wits about him. See also section 3.2.3. That there seem to be less stative idioms does not fall out from the account of statives outlined in chapters three and five, although it does invite further investigation.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

achievement and stative idioms, as just noted, suggesting that accomplishment idioms may be treated differently by the grammar. 3.2.2.2  McGinnis’s accomplishment idiom candidates.  McGinnis (2002: 667) claims that the following are accomplishment idioms: (75) a. run X into the ground. b. climb the ladder of success. c. pay one’s dues.

I have already discussed run X into the ground above in section 3.2.1; it patterns with achievements. I will discuss climb the ladder of success below in section 3.2.3; but note now that it does not pattern with accomplishments either. In this section I focus on pay one’s dues. The Penguin dictionary of English idioms (Gulland & Hinds-Howell 2002) does not list this as an idiom, nor does The Oxford dictionary of idioms (Siefring 2005). The online dictionary AskOxford.com lists this as a phrase meaning “fulfill one’s obligations”. McGinnis (2002: 666) herself supplies the following meaning: “earn one’s right to do something.” Two points are worth making here. First, given two related, although distinct definitions as we have here, there may be differences in judgments of this idiom, which, in turn, could lead to different aspectual results. Second, it is worth reiterating that neither The Penguin dictionary of English idioms (Gulland & Hinds-Howell 2002) nor The Oxford dictionary of idioms (Siefring 2005) actually list this as an idiom; its status as an idiom is questionable. Its questionable idiomatic status can be highlighted by a consideration of AskOxford. com’s two definitions for the noun due itself: 1. (one’s due/dues) a person’s right; and 2. (dues) fees. If we consider McGinnis’s definition “earn one’s right to do something” in this light, the idiom is actually composed of literal meaning parts since, according to AskOxford.com, one’s rights are one’s dues. Now, even if we take AskOxford.com’s definition of the idiom as to “fulfill one’s obligations” – which incidentally matches my own intuitions more closely – we are still faced with the problem of keeping the idiomatic interpretation separate from the non-idiomatic interpretation; for, the second definition listed by AskOxford.com for the noun due is fees, as in membership fees.33 If to pay one’s dues means to fulfill one’s obligations, then to pay one’s (membership) fees actually falls within the idiomatic interpretation of fulfilling one’s obligations. Of course, in paying one’s (idiomatic) dues, fees

.  The Random House College Dictionary (Stein et al. 1988: 408) notes: “ 9. Usually, dues. a regular fee or charge payable at specific intervals, esp. to a group or organization: membership dues.”



Chapter 4.  A lexical derivation of achievements 

are not necessarily involved. I take this proximity between the idiomatic and nonidiomatic interpretations to highlight the questionable idiomatic status of pay one’s dues. With this in mind let us tests its aspectual class. For the aspectual class tests, I will add with Tom to the sentences in order to control for the non-idiomatic interpretation in which dues are the same as fees. This literal interpretation is dispreferred in the presence of with Tom, in my own judgment. Additionally, I try to control for the more literal interpretation by limiting the amount of time expressed by the durative, since as part of the nature of dues are habitual payments, whether weekly, monthly or annually (see footnote 33). Now consider the interpretation of the durative phrase with this idiom in (76). (76) Bill paid his dues (with Tom)

#for a day.

The durative is incompatible with the idiom on a single event interpretation. There is no iterative interpretation available either, presumably due to the nature of paying one’s dues. It is worth noting that McGinnis (2002: 667) tests the durative with this idiom. Her example is illustrated below in (77) in which the durative phrase is compatible.34 (77) Hermione paid her dues for ten years.

The durative phrase does seem compatible here, but not on the relevant interpretation. The longer amount of time expressed by a durative, the easier it is to get an iterative interpretation (Vanden Wyngaerd 2001: 77), and when there is an iterative interpretation the easier it is to get a habitual interpretation, especially when the durative expresses an amount of time in years. Moreover, as I noted above, a habitual/repetitive interpretation lends itself to the more literal interpretation of paying fees (see also footnote 33). Additionally, as noted in chapter two, section 2.2.1.2 the aspectual properties of predicates are different under a habitual interpretation. (77) is grammatical on a habitual interpretation, however, it is not clear what this tells us about its aspectual properties as an idiom. The perfect-to-progressive entailment test confirms the conclusions from (76), that this idiom is telic, as illustrated in (78). (78) Bill is paying his dues (with Tom). Bill has paid his dues (with Tom).

.  McGinnis (2002: 666) states that accomplishments “generally allow modification by a forphrase.” It is not clear on what interpretation accomplishments generally allow modification by a for-phrase.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

That Bill is in the middle of paying his dues (with Tom) does not entail that Bill has paid his dues (with Tom). Consider the interpretation of almost with this idiom in (79). (79) Bill almost paid his dues (with Tom).

In this example, there does seem to be an incompletive interpretation available in which Bill begins to fulfill his obligations with Tom, but does not quite fulfill them all. This becomes salient in a context in which there is an hour-long task that Bill must complete in order to pay his dues with Tom; Bill completes a halfhour’s worth of the task. The sentence in (79) is felicitous in this context. If in fact, however, this interpretation is an incompletive interpretation resulting from the accomplishment interpretation of the idiom, we would also expect a counterfactual interpretation. This should be available in the following context: there is an hour-long task that Bill must complete in order to pay his dues with Tom; Bill thinks about doing it but then decides not to. The sentence in (79) also seems felicitous in this context. According to the interpretation of almost this idiom patterns with accomplishments. Consider this idiom in the stop-control construction in (80). (80)

?Bill

stopped paying his dues (with Tom).

The sentence is a bit marked, although there does seem to be a single event interpretation available in which Bill was paying his dues with Tom, but then stopped before paying them all. According to the stop-control construction, this idiom also patterns with accomplishments.35 Finally, note that the interpretation of the time span adverbial indicates that the idiom patterns with accomplishments as well. This is illustrated in (81). (81) Bill paid his dues (with Tom) in an hour.

There does seem to be an interpretation in which the time span adverbial modifies the end of the event, which is indicative of accomplishments. In contrast to the idioms from section 3.2.2.1 (e.g., pour one’s heart out and paint a bleak picture), pay one’s dues seems to pattern unequivocally as an accomplishment. Also in contrast to the idioms from section 3.2.2.1, the status of pay one’s dues as an idiom is questionable. That is, it may not be an idiom at all. In section 3.2.4, I discuss why this is relevant.

.  McGinnis (2002: 667) also runs this test taking it as evidence that this idiom is an ­accomplishment.



Chapter 4.  A lexical derivation of achievements 

3.2.3  Accomplishment idioms are idiomatically combining expressions The idioms pour one’s heart out, paint a bleak picture and, pay one’s dues, our accomplishment idiom candidates, pattern with ices.36 First note that they are composed of idiomatic parts. Consider pour one’s heart out first; it means “to confide all one’s sorrows, fears, anxieties, hopes and joys to another person” (Gulland & Hinds-Howell 2002: 116). It is straightforward to associate pour out with confide and one’s heart with one’s feelings (for shorthand). Consider paint a bleak picture, which means “to admit to a pessimistic outlook” (Gulland & Hinds-Howell 2002: 269). It is straightforward to understand paint as admit to and a bleak picture as a pessimistic outlook. Finally, consider pay one’s dues, which as an idiom means “fulfill one’s obligations” (AskOxford.com). Again it is straightforward to understand pay as fulfill and one’s dues as one’s obligations. As noted above, it is typical of ices that they can be decomposed into idiomatic meaning parts (Nunber et al. 1994: 496). Moreover, these parts can be modified, can often be the antecedent of anaphora and can sometimes move (Nunberg et al. 1994: 500–502). Consider the data in (82) to (84). (82) a. b. c.

Patsy poured all of her heart out to her sister. Patsy poured her heart out to her sister and then she poured it out to her mother. Her whole heart, Patsy poured out to her sister.

(83) a. b. c.

Fred painted a gloomy/ugly/bleak picture of the situation. Fred painted a bleak picture of the situation for Bill and then he painted one for Mary. A bleak picture of the situation, Fred painted.

(84) a. Bill paid all of his dues with Tom. b. Bill paid his dues with Tom, and then he paid them with Paul. c. His dues, Bill paid with Tom.

These idioms fall into the class of ices. In fact, I claim that the only idioms that are interpreted as accomplishments are ices.37 I will discuss the significance of this for the prediction that there are no accomplishments in the lexicon below

.  Another seems to be clean someone’s clock. which according to The Oxford dictionary of idioms (Siefring 2005: 55) means: 1. “give someone a beating”, or 2. “beat or surpass someone decisively.” .  Glasbey (2007) argues that ices show an aspectual composition that ips do not. Furthermore, she claims that this process of aspectual composition is the same for non-idiomatic aspectual composition. She does not explicitly state that this aspectual composition takes place in the syntax, although it is tacit in her proposal.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

in section 3.2.4. For now note that although accomplishment idioms are ices, not all ices are accomplishment idioms. Consider an idiom that McGinnis (2002: 667) claims is an accomplishment: climb the ladder of success. This idiom is not listed as such in The Penguin dictionary of English idioms (Gulland & Hinds-Howell 2002: 162), although they do list to take a step up the ladder and to go up the ladder with the meaning “to be promoted”. In fact, it seems that this idiom can occur with a variety of different verbs, some of which are listed in (85). (85)

a. b. c. d. e. f.

climb up the ladder (of success) take a step up the ladder (of success) go up the ladder (of success) fly up the ladder (of success) fall down the ladder (of success) run up the ladder (of success)

I assume that the idiom contains only the material that the sentences in (85) have in common – see also Richards (2001: 184) who assumes something similar for a different set of idioms – roughly motion verb + the ladder. That which they do not all share, then, does not form part of the idiom as it is listed in the lexicon. This is relevant, since, as we will now see, there is variation among the sentences in (85) with respect to their aspectual predicate type that seems to be dependent on the verb. If the sentences vary aspectually, then their aspectual interpretation is not something that they have in common; consequently, their aspectual interpretation is not part of the idiom. In this case, we can conclude that this idiom does not have a concrete aspectual specification in the lexicon. Of course, if this idiom is not specified in the lexicon for aspect, then, in principle there is nothing to permit it from behaving like an accomplishment as long as the non-idiomatic portions can contribute the relevant aspectual information. Consider the interpretation of (85a) and (85b) with durative phrases in (86a) and (86b) respectively. (86) a. Brian climbed the ladder of success b. Brian took a step up the ladder of success

for a week. #for a week.

I will refer to the idiom in (86a) as IA and the idiom in (86b) as IB throughout this discussion for ease of exposition. The durative with IA expresses a single event interpretation. There is no iterative interpretation; IA behaves like an atelic predicate. The durative with IB is incompatible; there is no single event interpretation available. IB behaves like a telic predicate. Consider the progressive-to-perfect ­entailment in (87). (87) a. Brian is climbing the ladder of success. → Brian has climbed the ladder of success. b. Brian is taking a step up the ladder of success. Brian has taken a step up the ladder of success.



Chapter 4.  A lexical derivation of achievements 

The entailment holds for IA supporting that it is atelic. It does not hold for IB, supporting that it is telic. Now consider the interpretation of almost with these idioms in (88). (88) a. Brian almost climbed the ladder of success. b. Brian almost took a step up the ladder of success.

The only interpretation available for almost here is a counterfactual interpretation. In both (88a) and (88b) the only interpretation is that Brian did not get promoted at all. There is no interpretation in which Brian began to get promoted, but then did not get promoted completely. This is what we expect if IA is an activity and IB is an achievement. Finally, consider these idioms in the stop-control construction in (89). (89) a. Brian stopped climbing the ladder of success. b. ??Brian stopped taking a step up the ladder of success.

A single event interpretation of (89a) seems to be available as expected; nevertheless, note that there is a salient habitual interpretation as well. Although IB in the stop-control construction is quite odd, the only interpretation available seems to be an iterative one. This is expected from an achievement predicate. According to the tests for aspectual predicate class, IA and IB pattern as different aspectual predicate types. IA patterns with activities and IB patterns with achievements. Given that the verb is different in IA and IB, it is arguably the source of the difference in aspectual interpretations, and not the idiom itself. Note that it is not entirely out of the ordinary that we find idioms in which parts can be changed for others. Nunberg et al. (1994: 504) argue that this is expected from ices. They note many cases in which a single idiomatic np can occur with more than one idiomatic verb. They refer to them as families of idioms. One such example that they provide is given in (90).38 (90) a. keep one’s cool b. lose one’s cool

The Penguin dictionary of English idioms (Gulland & Hinds-Howell 2002: 20) lists to lose one’s cool with the meaning “to lose one’s temper”. By running the four aspectual predicate class tests on these two idioms, we would see that keep one’s cool behaves like an activity, while lose one’s cool behaves like an achievement. Yet neither behaves like an accomplishment. Another pair in which a change in aspectual interpretation goes hand in hand with a change in the verb is given in (91).

.  Nunberg et al. (1994: 504) also note blow one’s cool.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

(91) a. have one’s ducks in a row b. get one’s ducks in a row

The Oxford dictionary of idioms (Siefring 2005: 87) lists get (or have) your ducks in a row with the meaning “get (or have) your facts straight; get (or have) everything organized”. Again, by running the four aspectual tests on these two idioms we would see that their aspect varies; have one’s duck in a row behaves like a stative predicate and get one’s ducks in a row behaves like an achievement predicate. Yet neither behaves like an accomplishment. Although an idiom must be an ice to be interpreted as an accomplishment, not all ices are interpreted as accomplishments. 3.2.4  Accomplishment idioms and the importance of syntax Glasbey (2007: 9) suggests that ices undergo an aspectual composition that ips do not. Furthermore, she suggests that this process of aspectual composition is the same process of aspectual composition that non-idiomatic constructions undergo. Assuming Glasbey (2007) is correct in this respect, this means that the accomplishment interpretation of ices results from the same process that derives the accomplishment interpretation of non-idioms. I assume that this is so, and suggest furthermore, that in this process of deriving an accomplishment interpretation, syntax plays an important role. If this suggestion is on the right track, then although ices can be interpreted as accomplishments, syntax plays a role in their derivation. Consequently, we cannot conclude that accomplishment ices are stored as accomplishments in the lexicon, which entails that they are not relevant to the prediction that there are no accomplishments in the lexicon. Note that there is not always a clear split between idiomatic and non-idiomatic expressions. In the following expressions, there is a sense in which the degree of idiomaticity decreases from one to the next: tie the knot, paint a bleak picture, pay one’s dues, drink a beer. At the extreme end of high idiomaticity, there is tie the knot, which patterns with ips. It is not composed of clear idiomatic parts, nor does it pattern with ices with respect to movement or modification: #The knot, Joe tied with Mary; #They tied the whole knot. At the other extreme there is drink a beer, which is an example of a prototypical non-idiomatic expression. It behaves as we expect for a verb phrase built up in the syntax. First, the meaning of the entire sentence is transparently composed of the meaning of its parts. Second, the parts can move and be modified: A beer, John drank; John drank the whole beer. With respect to these extremes of idiomaticity, the dichotomy between an idiomatic expression and a non-idiomatic expression is clear cut. However, consider paint a bleak picture and pay one’s dues. As noted above, both of these



Chapter 4.  A lexical derivation of achievements 

expressions behave like ices. However, recall that the idiomatic status of pay one’s dues was called into question, whereas the idiomatic status of paint a bleak picture was not. In this respect, pay one’s dues is less idiomatic than paint a bleak picture, although arguably more idiomatic than drink a beer. Finally, if we assume that the lack of idiomatic parts entails a higher degree of idiomaticity than the presence of idiomatic parts, then we can conclude that tie the knot has a higher degree of idiomaticity than paint a bleak picture. In this way we derive the decreasing scale of idiomaticity noted above. This scale of idiomaticity seems to correlate with the degree to which a predicate can be interpreted as an accomplishment. More concretely, a higher degree of idiomaticity seems to entail a lower likelihood of being interpreted as an accomplishment. At the highest degree of idiomaticity, there is tie the knot; it is not an accomplishment, it is an achievement. A little less idiomatic is paint a bleak picture; it patterns with accomplishments with respect to some tests, but not with respect to others. The next two on the scale are pay one’s dues and drink a beer; both pattern altogether with accomplishments. Finally, it is intuitive to correlate idiomaticity with lexicalization. That is, the more idiomatic an expression is the more likely it is lexicalized; the less idiomatic, the less likely it is lexicalized. This seems straightforward when considering the extreme cases noted above: tie the knot, and drink a beer. In fact, both Glasbey (2007) and Nunberg et al. (1994) assume that ips, like tie the knot, are stored as complete phrases in the lexicon. With respect to drink a beer, there is no reason to assume that syntax does not play its standard role; there is no reason to assume that it is stored as a complete phrase in the lexicon. Drink a beer is not a lexicalized expression like tie the knot is. If degree of lexicalization correlates with degree of idiomaticity, and degree of idiomaticity correlates with the likelihood of receiving an accomplishment interpretation, then we can correlate the degree of lexicalization to the likelihood of receiving an accomplishment interpretation. More concretely, the more lexicalized an expression is, the less likely it is to be an accomplishment. If we assume that the less lexicalized an expression is, the more syntax plays a role, we can state the correlation positively in terms of syntax: the more syntax is involved in the formation of an expression, the greater the potential of receiving an accomplishment interpretation. Independent evidence for the correlation between lexicalization and accomplishment interpretation comes from a contrast between pp-accomplishments (e.g., John carried the goat into the barn.) and ditransitives (e.g., John put the bird in the cage.). A crucial difference between pp-accomplishments and ditransitives is that there is a lexical relationship among the parts that make up a ditransitive construction that does not hold among the parts of a pp-accomplishment. To put it another way, the goal pp is selected for in ditransitives, not in pp-accomplishments.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

Now superficially, pp-accomplishments and ditransitives resemble each other. Nevertheless, while pp-accomplishments are accomplishments (see chapter two), ditransitives are achievements. Consider the ditransitives in (92) and (93). (92) a. John stopped putting the bird in the cage. b. John stopped giving the book to his friend. (93) a. John almost put the bird in the cage. b. John almost gave the book to his friend.

Only an iterative interpretation is available in the stop-control construction, and almost elicits only a counterfactual interpretation. Ditransitives pattern with achievements, while pp-accomplishments pattern with accomplishments. There is an obvious lexical relation among the parts of a ditransitive construction that does not hold among the parts of a pp-accomplishment. Ditransitives are more lexicalized, and they do not form accomplishments. pp-accomplishments are less lexicalized and they do form accomplishments. There again seems to be a correlation between degree of lexicalization and ability to form an accomplishment. I assume that this is so. Consider the correlations between degree of idiomaticity, degree of lexicalization and accomplishment interpretation summarized in Table 1. Table 1.  Lexicalization – accomplishment interpretation correlation

tie the knot

paint a bleak picture

pay one’s dues

drink a beer

degree of idiomaticity degree of lexicalization accomplishemt interpretation

3 3 *

2 2 ?

1 1 √

0 0 √

The numbers are arbitrary but indicative of where these verb phrases stand with respect to each other on the relevant scales. The table illustrates a correlation between how lexicalized, how idiomatic an expression is and its ability to be interpreted as an accomplishment. Again, assuming that the less lexicalized an expression is, the more syntax plays a role in its composition, we can state the correlation positively in terms of syntax. The more syntax plays a role, the greater the possibility that a verb phrase can be interpreted as an accomplishment. These correlations suggest that syntax plays a role in the formation of accomplishments. I conclude therefore that syntax plays an important role in the formation of all accomplishments, whether they are standard accomplishments, pp-accomplishments or ice accomplishments. Thus, it is not clear that ice accomplishments are relevant for testing the prediction that there are no



Chapter 4.  A lexical derivation of achievements 

accomplishments in the lexicon. The relevant idioms are ips, and as we saw above, none behave like accomplishments.

4.  The consequences of this approach to achievements I have argued that a combination of Hale & Keyser’s (1993, 2002) lexical derivational approach to denominal and deadjectival verbs and the event feature approach to es outlined in chapter three explains the range of properties surrounding achievements. Three main consequences follow from this approach. First, as just discussed, the prediction that there are no accomplishments in the lexicon falls out from this approach. There are reasons to believe that there are no accomplishments in the lexicon. This means that syntax plays a crucial in the formation of accomplishments. It’s role is two-fold: 1. Aspectual calculation takes place in narrow syntax, at Transfer to the CI interface; and 2. External merge hierarchically arranges the event features of accomplishments such that time is interpreted to elapse between the beginning and the end of the event. The second consequence is that lexical processes obey principles of narrow syntax. Specifically, from the discussion of syntactic and semantic (in)visibility, it looks like the syntax-lexicon interface may have at least one phase-like property. Like the edge of phases in narrow syntax, only the highest elements in a complex lexical item seem to be visible to syntactic operations. Denominal and deadjectival verbs are verbs because the highest category in their lexical representational structure is V-AspP. The 〈ie〉 feature is visible to syntax because it appears on V-AspP; that is, because it is high in the derived verb. In contrast, the noun, preposition and 〈 fe〉 feature of location verbs, for example, are low in the derived verb, and therefore cannot participate in syntactic operations. Nevertheless, they all contribute to interpretation. Because of the semantic contribution of the 〈 fe〉 feature, achievements are telic. Minimalism provides one way to understand why there might be lexical processes that build words in this way. Essentially, for the same reasons the pic is assumed (see Chomsky 2000, 2001, 2004 etc.); it reduces the computational load by reducing the search space for syntactic operations. In a sense, because of these lexical operations, more elements can be packed into a syntactic object to be interpreted at the CI interface without adding a greater computational load to the system, since only one portion of the syntactic object is visible to syntactic operations. The final consequence is that there must be an operative lexicon. See also Reinhart & Siloni (2005), for example. Without an operative lexicon there would be no lexical derivations, and there would therefore be no account of the event

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

feature configuration of achievements. In as much as the conclusions drawn from this lexical approach to achievements are substantiated, they support the lexical approach itself. It follows from the need for an operative lexicon and the crucial role of syntax in the formation of accomplishment, that there is a division of labor between the lexicon and the syntax in the formation of the distinct aspectual predicate types of English. This poses a serious problem for (neo-)constructional approaches to inner aspect which place the explanatory burden on the syntax, as in Borer (2005) and Ritter & Rosen (1998, 2000).

chapter 5

Minimalist variation in inner aspect A fundamental aspect of a generative approach to language is that all speakers have some component of language in common: universal grammar. However, there are observed differences among languages as well. Our goal is two-fold: to determine the properties of universal grammar and to determine the variant properties that give rise to the observed differences. Work toward these goals is necessarily carried out in tandem (Kayne 2000: 3). In this chapter, I discuss universal and variant properties of inner aspect. The system of inner aspect laid out in chapters two to four consists of two separate yet interacting elements: AspP and event features. The motivation for the two separate elements comes from the observation of two independent properties of English inner aspect: the ote mapping property and es. (See chapter one, section 2.) Given these two (sets of) properties, it would not be surprising that one were universal and the other variant. Their independent nature lends itself to this possibility. I suggest here that the es of a predicate is a universal property of inner aspect and that the ote mapping is a variant property. Technically, this means that event features are universal, and that AspP is variant. More specifically, I follow Chomsky (2000: 100, 2001: 10, 2004: 107, 2007: 6–7) by assuming that languages make a one-time selection of features from a universal feature set. If languages choose different features, then it follows that languages differ by those features that they do not have in common. One aspect of language variation then reduces to the presence or absence of an element in the lexicon.1 I claim that English has AspP in its inventory of functional projections while Russian does not (see Thráinsson’s (1996: 257) Limited Diversity Hypothesis). We saw in chapter two that there is a clustering of properties tied to the presence of AspP. We will see below that we do not find this clustering in Russian. This reflects one of two primary kinds of results

.  This fits in with assumptions that parametric variation is restricted to the lexicon (Chomsky 2001: 2, 2004: 107). Baker (2008: 153) refers to this assumption of parametric variation as The Borer-Chomsky Conjecture. I am not claiming here that all parametric variation is restricted to the lexicon. See Baker (2008) for arguments that there is also variation in syntax itself. See Borer (2005) and Ritter & Rosen (2000) for accounts of language variation in inner aspect that differ from the one presented here.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

of comparative syntax, that a clustering of properties can be traced back to an abstract parameter (Kayne 2000: 3). An optimal parametric account depends on a particular formulation of the properties of universal grammar as well (Kayne 2000: 3). I follow Chomsky (2004: 107, 2007: 12 n.17) by assuming that the mapping to the semantic component is uniform across languages; it is universal. Event features are crucially involved in this uniform mapping. For one, event features are interpretable features. Interpretable features are found cross-linguistically; they are universal. They also contribute to interpretation, by definition. Second, the c-command relation between event features claimed to be significant for the interpretation of achievements versus accomplishments is an independently motivated relation that plays an important role in the semantic component as well; specifically, in operator variable relations. Arguably the operator variable relation defined in terms of c-command follows from internal merge, which comes for free (Chomsky 2004: 110, 2007: 9, 17). The minimal conclusion about the uniform mapping to the semantic component is that it involves the interpretability of features and the c-command relation. Event features show both of these properties and in this way they provide evidence for a particular formulation of universal properties and the conditions imposed on the computational system by the CI-interface. We are able to arrive at this conclusion by comparing Russian and English. This reflects the second of the primary results of comparative syntax; it provides evidence bearing on concerns of a more universal nature (Kayne 2000: 3). Cross-linguistic variation in inner aspect can be accounted for by the presence of AspP in one language and its absence in another. Chomsky (2000: 109) assumes that the epp feature “varies parametrically among languages and if available is optional.”2 Thus, the same feature that varies cross-linguistically is optional; optionality is simply a form of intra-linguistic variation. I argue that the same occurs with AspP. As noted above, I claim that AspP is not present in Russian, and in this respect Russian varies from English. Moreover, I argue that in English while AspP is present in eventive predicates, it is absent in statives predicates. AspP varies both cross-linguistically and intra-linguistically. Furthermore, I argue that the optional presence of AspP accounts for stative-eventive aspectually variable predicates. This range of variation around the same element is one way in which we might expect language variation to be minimalist. There may be no need to differentiate between elements that vary across languages, elements that vary within a language, and elements that vary optionally. If it were necessary to differentiate these types of

.  See also Chomsky (2004: 112) for similar assumptions regarding the occ feature.



Chapter 5.  Minimalist variation in inner aspect 

variation, the elements that vary cross-linguistically would have to be marked differently from elements that vary intra-linguistically and each differently from elements that vary optionally. This would multiply the number of linguistic elements which would add more computational complexity, and tend away from “conceptual “good design” conditions” on the assumption that “less machinery is better than more” (Chomsky 2000: 144 n. 60).3 Under a minimalist approach, the only motivation to linguistically differentiate between these types of variation would be empirical. We will see below that inner aspect does not supply the empirical motivation. In fact, inner aspect supports a minimalist notion of language variation in which there is no formal difference between cross-linguistic variation and intra-linguistic variation: variation is just variation.4 This chapter is organized as follows. In section 1, I discuss intra-linguistic variation. I argue that we can account for a clustering of properties that English eventives show and English statives lack by assuming that eventive predicates have AspP and stative predicates lack it. In section 2, I address optional variation by discussing stative-eventive variable predicates. In section 3, I discuss cross-linguistic variation. I argue that Russian lacks AspP. This explains a systematic lack of a clustering of properties argued to be associated with AspP. We are left with event features. I show how event features can account for a large range of properties surrounding Russian perfective prefixes, both lexical and superlexical. In section 4, I offer some concluding remarks and briefly consider a property of Bulgarian in light of the minimalist notion of variation suggested here.

1.  Intra-linguistic variation: English statives vs. eventives Consider the aspectual affect of alternating the [±q] feature of the direct object np with stative predicates in (1). (1) a. John owned stereo equipment/a T.V.   for a month. b. John knew the answer/gaming software   for a while. c. John loved a woman/peanut butter   for a week.

.  Moreover, it is not clear what the reasons would be for marking elements that vary crosslinguistically differently from those that vary intra-linguistically if “reasons are reduced to effects at the interface.” (Chomsky 2000: 99). .  Abraham (2008: 18) seems to suggest something similar when stating that “macrovariation blends with microvariation as long as the genetic relation is as close as it is between German and Dutch.”

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

The [±q] specification of the np does not affect the aspectual interpretation of the predicate, as indicated by the non-iterative interpretation of the durative phrase; the predicates remain atelic. There is no ote mapping with stative predicates. Now consider the interpretation of bps with statives predicates in (2). (2) a. John owned books   for a month. b. John knew Spaniards   for a month. c. John loved olives   for a week.

(2a) does not mean that John owned one book then another and so on for a month. (2b) does not mean that John knew one Spaniard and then another and so on for a month. There is no sse interpretation elicited by a bp with a stative predicate. Finally, consider the effect of the presence of a goal phrase when added to a stative predicate in (3). (3) a. John owed a car b. John loved the game

(to the bank) for a week/#in a week. (to the core) for a year/#in a year.

Although a goal phrase can elicit a telic interpretation of a predicate with transitive activities, when added to statives predicates, their presence does not affect aspectual interpretation; the stative predicate does not become telic. If there is no domain of aspectual interpretation, then the 〈 fe〉 feature of the goal P will not be able to contribute subevent structure. In fact, no event features will be able to contribute to aspectual interpretation. This would shed light on the lack of both the counterfactual and incompletive interpretation elicited by almost and the lack of both the start-time and end-time interpretation elicited by the it takes x-time construction noted in chapter three, section 1.1.1. These data are repeated below in (4) and (5) respectively. (4) a. The girl (*almost) loved a dog (#but she loved a cat instead). b. The man (*almost) owned a bike (#but he owned a scooter instead). (5) a. *It took the man a year to love a woman. b. *It took the woman a year to own a car.

Stative predicates do not show the ote mapping, there is no sse interpretation elicited by bps, and they lack a domain of aspectual interpretation. These three properties can be explained by assuming that English statives syntactically differ from eventive predicates by lacking AspP in their basic verb phrase. This, in fact, is what I claim. The basic tree structure for stative predicates is given in (6).5

.  I assume that there is a non-agentive vP here, as a car must receive accusative case from somewhere.





Chapter 5.  Minimalist variation in inner aspect 

(6) a. b.

Luke owned a car. ...vP DP Luke

v′ v

VP V own





DP a car

This proposal for stative predicates fits in well with an account of do so from Hallman (2004). Hallman argues on independent grounds that the do of do so is an “…overt reflex of a functional head that licenses the external argument in eventive VPs…” (Hallman 2004: 304), and so replaces the constituent selected by this do which “…must be marked as [+eventive].” (Hallman 2004: 306). Essentially, eventive predicates (i.e., activities, accomplishments and achievements) are fine in do so constructions, while statives are not. This is illustrated in (7a), (7b), and (7c) for activities, accomplishments and achievements respectively, and in (8) for statives. (7) a. John drove the car and Frank did so too. b. John ate a cake and Frank did so too. c. John caught a raccoon and Frank did so too. (8) a. b. c.

?John

knew a Spaniard and Frank did so too. loved cheese and Frank did so too. ?John owned a house and Frank did so too. ?John

The relevant interpretation on which these statives are ungrammatical becomes more salient in the constructions in (9).6 (9) a. *What John did was know a Spaniard. b. *What John did was love cheese. c. *What John did was own a house.

The do so facts surrounding eventive and stative predicates can be explained quite straightforwardly if we assume that eventives have AspP and statives lack it. The do in do so selects for AspP (i.e., the “[+eventive]” vp from Hallman (2004)). I take

.  Jackendoff (1983: 179–180) observes these facts about statives.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

this as independent support for the proposal that eventive predicates project AspP and statives do not.7

2.  Optional variation: Stative – eventive alternations in English Chomsky (2000: 109) assumes that the epp feature, when available in a language, is not obligatorily present in a given construction; it is optional. If AspP behaves the same way, then we expect the existence of predicates in which AspP is optionally present. That is, we expect the existence of predicates that vary aspectually between an eventive and a stative interpretation. More concretely, since the presence of AspP minimally entails the presence of the 〈ie〉 feature (by assumption; see chapter three, section 2.2), we expect alternations from stative to activity interpretations. Additionally, we know that AspP can bear an 〈 fe〉 feature too. Therefore, we also expect alternations between a stative and achievement interpretation of a predicate. The final logical possibility, of course, is a stative-accomplishment alternation. We will see that, as far as this author is aware, there are no attested cases of this (Rothstein (2004: 13) observes that there is a lack of stative-accomplishment alternation.). Within the system developed here, one way to understood this systematic lack of stative-accomplishment alternations is from the perspective of complexity; this alternation may be precluded because is entails a greater degree of complexity than the other alternations. I briefly discuss the relevance of complexity with respect to the lack of stative-accomplishment (and the lack of achievementaccomplishment) a­ lternations in chapter eight, section 3.4. Consider the alternation between a stative and an achievement interpretation of the predicates in (10). (10) a. The snow covered the field. b. The army surrounded the compound.

On the stative interpretation of (10a), snow is covering the field in its entirety, while not actively in motion. Likewise, on the stative interpretation of (10b), the army could simply be standing in a circle around the compound. On the achievement interpretations of (10a) and (10b) respectively, we can imagine snow falling on the field until it is covered, and the army running around the compound until it is surrounded.

.  McClure (1993) makes a similar proposal in which eventive predicates have aspectual projections present in their underlying syntax, while statives lack these projections. His aspectual projections are fundamentally different in nature from AspP here.



Chapter 5.  Minimalist variation in inner aspect 

Moreover, observe in (11), that on their achievement interpretations, almost only receives a counterfactual interpretation, as expected. The snow cannot be interpreted as having covered the field in (11a), and the army cannot be interpreted as having surrounded the compound in (11b). (11) a. The snow almost covered the field. b. The army almost surrounded the house.

Another way in which this predicate behaves as an achievement comes from the iterative interpretation arising in the stop-control construction in (12). (12) a. The snow stopped covering the field. b. The army stopped surrounding the house.

(12a) means that over the years snow would cover the field, but now it no longer does so. Likewise, in (12b), there is only an interpretation in which the army used to surround the house, but this behavior has now stopped. This variability between a stative interpretation of a predicate and an achievement interpretation is straightforwardly accounted for by the absence of AspP on the stative interpretation and by the presence of AspP with an event feature configuration on the achievement interpretation; these structures are illustrated in (13a) and (13b) respectively. (13)

a.

vP DP

the snow

b. DP

v′ v

the snow

VP V cover

DP the field



vP



v′ v

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉 V 〈ie〉 〈fe〉 cover

VP DP the field

Another possible stative-eventive alternation is between a stative and an activity interpretation. There seem to be limited cases. However, I provide two examples in (14). (14) a. John thought that color had a flavor. b. John weighed 110 lbs last year.

The predicates in (14) are interpreted as statives: they express a certain state of the subject. Now consider the data in (15)

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

(15) a. John thought (for a minute) before responding. b. John weighed the material for 10 minutes.

These predicates take on an activity interpretation in (15), although accompanied by some other changes. In (15a), in contrast to (14a), a CP complement is no longer required. Also (15b) is a transitive, in contrast to (14b). This suggests that there is some added complexity to these cases. Nevertheless, capturing the aspectual variability is straightforward, as is illustrated in (16). (16)

vP

a. DP John

vP

b. DP

v′ v

John

VP V weigh

DP 110 1bs.





v′ v

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

VP V weigh

DP the material

Here the difference is that on the stative interpretation, there is no AspP present and therefore, no subevent structure, as in (16a). On the activity interpretation, minimally AspP is present – which introduces the 〈ie〉 feature – which results in the activity interpretation, as in (16b). There are predicates in which AspP is optionally present.

3.  Cross-linguistic variation: Russian vs. English We have seen that AspP is present in English eventives and absence in English statives. We have also seen that it is optionally presence in stative-eventive alternations. Now we will see that while AspP is in the inventory of functional projections in English, there is evidence to suggest that it is not in Russian. Just like we saw for statives, if AspP is not present in Russian, then we expect that 1. There should be no ote mapping; 2. There should be no sse interpretation elicited by bps; and 3. There should be no domain of aspectual interpretation; that is, goal Ps should not elicit a telic interpretation of an atelic predicate. If Russian lacks AspP, it is not to say that Russian lacks inner aspectual properties. Given the independence of AspP and event features, the natural expectation is that event features can explain the aspectual properties of Russian.



Chapter 5.  Minimalist variation in inner aspect 

3.1  No AspP in Russian As a brief and general introduction to Russian (and more generally Slavic) verb forms, note that Russian has simplex imperfective forms of verbs, illustrated in (17a), which can be made perfective through the addition of a prefix which can sometimes result in a change in the lexical meaning of the verb, illustrated in (17b); this derived perfective verb can be made imperfective through the addition of a suffix (i.e., a secondary imperfective), without a change in the lexical meaning of the verb, as in (17c); moreover, there can be multiple perfective prefixes on a single verb with the secondary imperfective often obligatory (Borik 2002: 6; Svenonius 2004: 239) as shown in (17d).8 (17) a.

čitat’ pit’ pisat’

“read” “drink” “write”

simplex imperfective

b.

pro-čitat’ vy-pit’ za-pisat’ pod-pisat’

“read” “drink” “write down” “subscribe”

perfective prefix

c.

pro-čit-yva-t’ vy-pi-va-t’ za-pis-yva-t’ pod-pis-yva-t’

d. po-v-stav-a-tj DSTR-in-stand-imp-infP ‘stand up one by one’

secondary imperfective

stacked perfective prefixes

I will not discuss the properties of secondary imperfectives or verb forms with stacked prefixes. I will only be concerned here with accounting for the aspectual properties of simplex imperfective forms and those perfective forms derived from them by the addition of a perfective prefix.9 With respect to perfective prefixes, it has been noted that they are not a completely homogeneous group (Ramchand 2004: 323; Schoorlemmer 1995: 82–85; Slabakova 1997: 677; Smith 1991: 242; Svenonius 2004: 204). Although they all share some properties, they diverge on others. It

.  Examples in (17a) to (17c) are based on examples from Borik (2002: 4–6). The example in (17d) is taken from Svenonius (2004: 239). .  It is worth noting that there are also simplex perfective forms (about 50 in Russian according to Babko-Malaya 1997: 35 n.5), i.e., perfective verbs without the need for a prefix, e.g., dat. These pattern with lexically prefixed perfectives as expected, as I note below in section 3.2.2.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

is this divergence that has led to claims that there are at least two groups of prefixes: lexical and superlexical. For now I treat Russian prefixes as a unified class. In section 3.2.2 I discuss how lexical and superlexical prefixes differ and offer an account of those differences. Consider the durative phrase and the time span adverbial in the sentences in (18), which contain verbs in imperfective. (18) a.

Ja pil butylku vina/vino *za čas/v tečeniji časa. I drank-imp. a-bottle of-wine/wine *in hour/during hour ‘I drank a bottle of wine/wine in an hour/for an hour.’

b. Mary čitala knigu/poèziju *za čas/v tečeniji časa. Mary read-imp. a book/poetry *in hour/during hour ‘Mary read a book/poetry in an hour/for an hour.’

The durative alone is compatible; the time span adverbial is not. This results, because the imperfective form of the verb in Russian describes an atelic event (Szuscich 2002: 253).10 Furthermore, note that this is the case regardless of the [±q] feature of the internal argument np.11 The internal argument does not affect the aspectual interpretation of the predicate (Schoorlemmer 1995: 98–100).12 Consider these sentences with the verb made perfective by a prefix. (19) a.

Ja vypil butylku vina/vino za čas/*v tečeniji časa. I drank-perf. a-bottle of-wine/win in hour/*during hour ‘I drank a bottle of wine/wine in an hour/for an hour.’

b. Mary pročitala knigu/ poèziju za čas/*v tečeniji časa. Mary read-perf. a book/poetry in hour/*during hour ‘Mary read a book/poetry in an hour/for an hour.’

.  Note also that there is a habitual interpretation available with the imperfective as well (Szucsich 2002). Filip (2000: 41) notes that there is an iterative interpretation available in the imperfective in “a suitable context”. I assume that this is not an sie interpretation and can only occur within the scope of a habitual interpretation. Recall from the discussion in chapter two, section 2.2.1.2 that a habitual interpretation can affect the aspectual properties of a predicate. .  Wierzbikcka (1967: 2237) notes for Polish that “In a sentence with an imperfective verb the object is treated as an endless “continuum”, as a “substance without form”.” .  Svenonius (2004: 228) cites Vitkova (2004) who makes a similar observation for Bulgarian. Although Slabakova (1997: 692) observes that the internal argument np of verbs that are new borrowings do affect the telicity of the predicate. See section 4 below where I discuss how this is not entirely surprising if we assume a minimalist approach to variation in which variation is variation.



Chapter 5.  Minimalist variation in inner aspect 

The perfective shows the opposite pattern from the imperfective with respect to the durative phrase and the time span adverbial; only the time span adverbial is compatible; the durative phrase is not (see also Smith 1991; Szucsich 2002; among others). This results because predicates with perfective prefixes are telic in Russian.13 Furthermore, note that this is the case regardless of the [±q] feature of the internal argument np. The internal argument does not affect the aspectual interpretation of the predicate, as it does in English. The data in (18) to (19) suggest that there is no ote mapping in Russian. Now consider the interpretation of bps. Consider it first with the imperfective form of the verb in (20). (20) a.

Mary jela jabloki. Mary ate-imp. apples ‘Mary ate apples.’



b. Mary čitala knigi. Mary read-imp. books ‘Mary read books.’

There does seem to be an iterative interpretation available. I claim that this results from the vague denotation associated with a mn interpretation of the bp. For, although there seems to be an iterative interpretation available, there is also a group interpretation available in which, in (20a), the apples were being eaten all at the same time, (perhaps a bite from one followed by a bite from another), and in which, in (20b), the books were all being read at the same time.14 Additionally, recall that for an sse interpretation, the predicate must be telic, and as we just saw, predicates in imperfective in Russian are atelic. Thus, I conclude that there is no sse interpretation available for bps with simplex imperfective forms of the verb in Russian. If a bp in Russian is to elicit an sse interpretation, then we expect it to do so with a verb in perfective form, since as we noted above, perfectivized verbs are telic. Consider the sentences in (21). (21) a.

Mary sjela jabloki. Mary ate-perf. apples ‘Mary ate apples.’

.  We will see in section 3.2.2 below that with respect to the time span adverbial and durative phrase lexical prefixes and superlexical prefixes show different patterns. .  Along similar lines, Wierzbicka (1967: 2239) notes for bp objects of imperfective verbs in Polish that they are “innumerable and ummeasurable.”

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

b. Mary pročitala knigi. Mary read-perf. books ‘Mary read books.’

The only interpretation available for a bp internal argument in the perfective form is a group interpretation. They are best understood as the apples in (21a) and the books in (21b).15 The data in (20) and (21) strongly suggest that there is no sse interpretation elicited from bps in Russian.16 Consider now whether the presence of a goal P can turn an atelic predicate into a telic predicate. Consider the data in (22). (22) a.

Fermer tasčil brevno v ambar The farmer dragged-imp. the log into the barn *za čas/v tečeniji časa. *in hour/during hour ‘The farmer dragged the log into the barn in an hour/for an hour.’

b. Ptisi leteli k kletke *za čas/v tečeniji časa. The birds flew-imp. toward their cage *in an hour/for an hour ‘The birds flew toward their cage in an hour/for an hour.’ c.

Coshca lezla na crishu doma The cat climbed-imp. onto the roof of the house *za čas/v tečeniji časa. *in an hour/for an hour ‘The cat climbed onto the roof of the house in an hour/for an hour.’

The presence of a goal P (or any P, be it a goal P or not) does not turn an atelic predicate into a telic predicate, as has been noted (Beck & Snyder 2001: 118). This is evidenced by the incompatibility of the time span adverbial and the compatibility of the durative phrase. This suggests that there is no domain of aspectual interpretation in the Russian verb phrase. Russian does not show the ote mapping property, bps do not elicit an sse interpretation, and there does not seem to be a domain of aspectual interpretation. These three facts can be explained by assuming that Russian lacks AspP.

.  Asya Pereltsvaig (p.c.). Wierzbicka (1967: 2338) also notes this for Polish. .  Russian does have a distributive prefix pere that requires the presence of a bp internal argument (Gillian Ramchand p.c.). The resulting interpretation may be similar to an sse interpretation. I assume that this is due to some lexical property of pere.



Chapter 5.  Minimalist variation in inner aspect 

3.2  Event features in Russian If Russian lacks AspP, then there must be some other element(s) involved in the Russian aspectual system. The system set up here provides us with some candidates: event features. I now outline an event feature account of Russian prefixes. Specifically, I claim that Russian simplex imperfective verbs have the structure in (23a) and perfectives have the structure in (23b). (23)

a. v



...vP

v

VP〈ie〉 V 〈ie〉



b.

...vP

...

VP〈fe〉 V 〈fe〉

...

〈ie〉 〈fe〉

Essentially simplex imperfectives have the same aspectual syntactic structure as English activities and Russian perfectives have the same aspectual syntactic structure as English achievements, except that the 〈 fe〉 feature is the projecting member of the event feature configuration. I claim that the perfective prefix itself introduces the 〈 fe〉 feature, and that the verb itself introduces the 〈ie〉 feature. As noted above, Russian prefixes are not a homogeneous group, although, there are some properties that they all seem to share. I will argue below that the properties that these prefixes have in common result from the fact that they all introduce an 〈 fe〉 feature, expressing that the event has an end. The properties that they diverge on, I will argue, follows from a difference in how these prefixes relate to the verb; lexical prefixes are related to the verb via a lexical process, like English achievements, and superlexical prefixes merge in narrow syntax higher in the structure. 3.2.1  Targeting and interpreting event features Perfectives and imperfectives show distributional differences in at least two different constructions: 1. Embedded under so-called phase verbs; and 2. Embedded under the periphrastic future. Only the imperfective can embed under so-called phase verbs (Schoorlemmer 1995: 81) and the periphrastic future (Schoorlemmer 1995: 80–84; Smith 1991: 250–251).17 Consider phase verbs first in (24) and (25).

.  Czech verb forms show the same patterns (Filip 1999: 179–181).

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

(24) a.

Mary perestala jest’ jabloko. Mary stopped eat-imp apple ‘Mary stopped eating the apple.’

b. *Mary perestala sjest’ jabloko. Mary stopped eat-perf apple ‘Mary stopped eating the apple.’ (25) a.

Mary perestala pit’ pivo. Mary stopped drink-imp beer ‘Mary stopped drinking the beer.’



b. *Mary perestala vypit’ pivo. Mary stopped drink-perf beer ‘Mary stopped drinking the beer.’

The (a) examples show that imperfectives can embed under phase verbs; the (b) examples show that perfectives cannot. Consider more examples from Schoorlemmer (1995: 81) in (26) and (27). (26) a.

Vanja načal stroit’ dom V. started-PF build-imp house

b. *Vanja načal postroit’ dom V. started-PF build-PF house (27) a.

Maša ne perestavala čitat’ skučnuju knigu M. not stopped-imp read-imp boring book

b. *Maša ne perestavala pročitat’ skučnuju knigu M. not stopped-imp read-PF boring book

Now consider the periphrastic future construction in (28) and (29).18 (28) a.

Vasja budet čitat’ trudnuju knigu V. will read-imp difficult book

b. *Vasja budet pročitat’ trudnuju knigu V. will read-PF difficult book (29) a.

Otec budet pisat’ father will write-imp ‘Father will write for a while.’

b. *Otec budet popisat’ father will write-PF ‘Father will write for a while.’

The (a) examples show that imperfective verb forms are grammatical in the periphrastic future; the (b) examples show that perfectives are not. .  Examples in (28) and (29b) taken from Schoorlemmer (1995: 80–84).



Chapter 5.  Minimalist variation in inner aspect 

The minimal conclusion to draw here is that imperfectives and perfectives have different properties. Some property of imperfectives licenses them in the two constructions above, while some property of perfectives precludes them from these constructions. Let us explore the nature of these properties by first considering the interpretation of počti “almost” with imperfectives in (30). (30) a.

Ja počti pil butylku vina. I almost drank-imp a-bottle of-wine ‘I almost drank a bottle of wine.’

b. Mary počti čitala knigu. Mary almost read-imp a book ‘Mary almost read a book.’ c.

Fermer počti tasčil brevno v ambar. The farmer almost dragged-imp the log into the barn ‘The farmer almost dragged the log into the barn.’

The only interpretation available is a counterfactual interpretation. (30a) can only mean that no amount of wine was drunk from the bottle at all. (30b) can only mean that no amount of the book was read at all. (30c) can only mean that no dragging of the log took place at all. Consider the interpretation of počti “almost” with perfective verbs in (31). (31) a.

Ja počti vypil butylku vina. I almost drank-perf a-bottle of-wine ‘I almost drank a bottle of wine.’

b. Mary počti pročitala knigu. Mary almost read-perf a book ‘Mary almost read a book.’ c.

Fermer počti pritasčil brevno v ambar. The farmer almost dragged-perf the log into the barn ‘The farmer almost dragged the log into the barn.’

Only an incompletive interpretation is available. (31a) can only mean that the bottle of wine was started, but that is was not completely drunk. (31b) can only mean that the book was started, but was not completely read. (31c) can only mean that the dragging of the log began, but no part of the log entered the barn.19 .  The interpretation of počti “almost” in the sentences with v, translated as “into”, is different from the English examples with into. The goal phrase in (30c) and (31c) is behaving more like English to. Observe that in John almost drove the car to the garage. on a counterfactual interpretation no driving took place at all, and on an incompletive interpretation driving took place but no part of the car made it to the garage. This results from the lexical semantic contribution of the goal preposition itself. Russian v behaves like English “to” with respect to the interpretation of počti “almost”.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

The facts of interpretation with počti “almost” suggest that with the imperfective form only the beginning of the event is available for modification, while with the perfective form, only the end of the event is available for modification.20 The interaction of negation with the verb in perfective and imperfective illustrated in the data in (32) from Smith (1991) is suggestive in this light. (32) Ja ešče ne pročital/čital ètu stat’ju I have not yet readperf/impf this article

Smith (1991: 256) notes that the imperfective “denies that action was initiated at all” and that the perfective is used to “deny that the speaker has completed reading the article.”21 “One possible explanation involves endpoints. The denial of initiation would result from the initial point being visible to negation. In contrast, the denial of completion would result from the final point’s visibility to negation.” (Smith 1991: 256)22 This quote from Smith summarizes the claim that’s being made here. With the imperfectives only the beginning of the event is syntactically visible, and with the perfectives, only the end of the event is syntactically visible. Finally note that with the perfective prefix, there is an entailment that the event cannot continue to the utterance time, illustrated in (33). This entailment does not hold for the imperfective forms, illustrated in (34).23 (33) a. b. c.

#On posidel v parke, i ešče tam sidit. He sat for a whileperf in the park, and is still sittingimpf there. #On napisal pis’mo i ešče pišet ego. He wroteperf the letter and is still writingimpf it. #On vyigral matč, i ešče vyigryvaet ego. He wonperf the game and is still winningimpf it.

.  This is the opposite of what we find with English achievements. The crucial difference in interpretation is that in English achievements there is no requirement that the event have begun, while the event does have to begin in Russian, as noted above. With English achievements, almost elicits an unambiguous counterfactual interpretation, while with Russian lexically prefixed verbs, počti “almost” elicits an unambiguous incompletive interpretation. .  Smith (1991: 256) refers to Rassudova (1982: 62) for these intuitions .  Nevertheless, Smith does not follow this approach as it does not fit in with her own assumptions; she assumes that there is no beginning point to imperfectives: “This rather ad hoc approach is not open to us. We are committed to the traditional analysis, in which neither endpoint of a situation is visible to the imperfective viewpoint.” (Smith 1991: 256). .  Data in (33) taken from Smith (1991: 231). Data in (34) from Smith (1991: 232).



Chapter 5.  Minimalist variation in inner aspect 

(34) a. b. c.

Vanja žil v Leingrade, i ešče tam živet Vanja was livingimpf in Leningrad, and still lives there Vanja pel v parke, i ešče tam poet Vanja was singingimpf in the park and is still singing there My pisali pis’mo, i ešče pišem ego. We were writingimpf a letter, and are still writing it.

The presence of the prefix entails that the event has an end. Thus, the event cannot be taking place at the time of utterance. For the simplex imperfective forms there is no entailment that the action expressed by this verb must be finished. Thus, the event can be taking place at the time of utterance. Observe that Schoorlemmer (1995: 101–102) notes a similar pattern with respect to the data in (35). (35) a.

Vasja provaljal duraka do utra V. pro-play fool-acc until morning ‘Vasja spent all night playing the fool.’

b. Vasja igral upražnenija do utra V. played-imp exercises until morning ‘Vasja was playing exercises until morning.’

Schoorlemmer (1995: 102) states that “Example [(35a)] implies that Vasja is no longer playing, an implication that is absent in [(35b)].”24 These patterns are reminiscent of the tense entailment patterns noted in chapter three, section 1.2 for achievements and activities in English: Russian imperfectives pattern with English activities and Russian perfectives with English achievements (and accomplishments). This is exactly what we expect if event features play a role in the aspectual systems of both languages. These patterns fall out if we adopt the aspectual syntactic structure proposed in (23a) and (23b) for Russian imperfectives and perfectives repeated below in (36a) and (36b) respectively. (36)

a. v



...vP

v

VP〈ie〉 V 〈ie〉



b.

...vP

...

VP〈fe〉 V 〈fe〉

...

〈ie〉 〈fe〉

.  Borik (2002: 57) agrees with Schoorlemmer’s intuition about (35b), although she claims that in (35a) there is no strict entailment, only a “weak inference”.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

In the imperfective structure in (36a), 〈ie〉 is introduced on big V and projects to vp.25 In the perfective structure in (36b), both 〈ie〉 and 〈 fe〉 are on big V in an event feature configuration, like English achievements. In contrast to English achievements, however, in Russian perfectives, the 〈 fe〉 feature projects, not the 〈ie〉 feature. I discuss a possible source of this difference between the event feature configurations of English achievements and Russian prefixed verbs below. I take the visibility of the event feature in syntax to be responsible for the distribution of perfectives and imperfectives with phase verbs and the periphrastic future. Specifically, I assume that phase verbs and the BE auxiliary of the periphrastic future require the presence of the 〈ie〉 feature, most likely via Agree.26 The 〈ie〉 feature is visible for Agree in the imperfective, but it is not in the perfective forms due to the nature of the event feature configuration. With respect to the interpretation of počti “almost” and negation, this follows from assuming that like English almost, počti modifies the relevant portion of es via Agree with an XP that bears an event feature. Only the beginning of the event is visible in Russian imperfectives, and only the end of the event is visible with the perfectives. This being the case, only a counterfactual interpretation is available with the imperfectives and only an incompletive interpretation is available with the perfectives. Likewise, negation seems to respond to the presence of the beginning of the event in imperfectives, negating that the beginning took place, and to the end of the event in the perfectives, negating that the end took place. This falls out if we adopt the aspectual syntactic structures from (36). The entailment patterns fall out as well. Imperfective verbs do not describe events that have an end, since they do not have an 〈 fe〉 feature; therefore, there is no entailment that the event ends before the utterance time. In contrast, perfective verbs describe events that have an end, because they have an 〈 fe〉 feature; therefore, there is an entailment that the event comes to an end before the utterance time. 3.2.2  Lexical vs. superlexical prefixes It has been argued that there are two classes of Russian (and more generally Slavic) perfective prefixes (Babko-Malaya 1997: 19; Gehrke in press: 2; Smith 1991: 242; Svenonius 2004: 205; Ramchand 2004: 12): lexical and superlexical. Some prefixes .  The 〈ie〉 feature is most likely introduced on big V by the verb because it is the minimal amount of verbal structure necessary for a verb phrase to be present in the syntax. Additionally, it seems natural that the aspectual interpretation of the predicate is not dependent on the presence of little v, given the discussion from chapters two and three. .  This account is very similar to Schoorlemmer’s (1995: 86–87) account. She assumes the presence of a functional projection AspP in the verb phrase that bears either a [+pf] or a [–pf] feature. The restriction on the periphrastic future is related to the incompatibility of the [+pf] on AspP in the perfective forms.



Chapter 5.  Minimalist variation in inner aspect 

that have been argued to be lexical are given in (37) and some that have been argued to be superlexical are given in (38).27 (37) a.

vy-sušit’ d. vy-dumat’ out-dry out-think “to dry up” “to invent”

b. do-nesti e. up-carry “to report” c.

raz-jest’ around-eat “to corrode”

vo-plotit’ in-flesh “to realize (a plan)”

(38) a. za – inceptive b. ot – terminative c. pere – distributive

d. na – cumulative e. pere – excessive f. po – attenuative

With respect to embedding under phase verbs, the periphrastic future and the entailment patterns, lexical and superlexical prefixes pattern the same. Nevertheless, there are several ways in which they differ. I mention five of these differences previously noted in the literature.28 First, as can be seen in the examples in (37), the addition of a lexical prefix to a verb tends to result in an idiosyncratic, less compositional meaning of the derived verb. Slavic prefixes in general are related to spatial prepositions, and in many cases often retain similar meanings (Filip 2000: 49; Svenonius 2004: 213–214). Nevertheless, often this prepositional meaning is lost when combined with a verb. Other examples that illustrate the non-compositionality of lexically prefixed verbs are provided in (39). (39) a.

iz-pravitj d. ot-pravitj out.of-drive away-drive “repair” “send”

b. pod-pravitj e. under-drive “correct” c.

v-pravitj in-drive “set”

pri-pravvitj by-drive “spice”

.  Examples in (37) are taken from Ramchand (2004: 15), her examples (24–25). Examples in (38) are taken from Svenonius (2004: 230–231) his example (58); he provides others not repeated here. .  One difference that I do not discuss is related to the ability to license a secondary imperfective. The tendency is that lexical prefixes do so quite readily while superlexical prefixes do not. However, Svenonius (2004: 239) notes that sometimes superlexical prefixes can license a secondary imperfective. He provides a structural account of this tendency. Ramchand (2004) and Gehrke (in press) offer semantic accounts.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

In contrast, superlexical prefixes tend to contribute a systematic meaning, as illustrated above in (38), resulting in a more compositionally derived verb. Another example is given in (40).29 (40) a.

Ivan pel (pesnju) Ivan sing-imp song-acc ‘Ivan was singing a song’

b. Ivan zapel (pesnju) Ivan started to sing song-acc ‘Ivan started to sing a song’

Second, while it is not unique to find lexically prefixed verbs as the base for a nominalization, as illustrated in (41a), it is rarer to find superlexically prefixed verbs as the base for a nominalization (Gerhke in press: 6; Svenonius 2004: 240–241), indicated in (41b).30 (41) a. na-pisat’P “to write (up)” > na-pisanie b. po-pisat’P “to write (for a while)” > *po-pisanie za-pisat’P “to (begin) to write” > *za-pisanie

“writing”

Third, it is often the case that the presence of a lexical prefix changes the a­ rgument structure properties of the verb with which it appears, as seen in (42) and (43).31 (42) a.

Ivan stroil (ploščadku). Ivan built-imp. (area) ‘Ivan was building an area.’

b. Ivan zastroil *( ploščadku). Ivan built-perf. (area) ‘Ivan built up an area.’ (43) a.

Ivan pisal (pis’mo). Ivan wrote-imp. (letter) ‘Ivan was writing a letter.’

b. Ivan napisal *(pis’mo). Ivan wrote-perf.  (letter) ‘Ivan wrote a letter.’

.  Examples in (40) taken from Babko-Malaya (1997: 21). .  Examples in (41) taken from Gerhke (in press: 6). .  Examples in (42) and (43) taken from Babko-Malaya (1997: 21).



Chapter 5.  Minimalist variation in inner aspect 

This is not the case for superlexical prefixes, as seen in (44).32 (44) a. Ivan za-pel (pesnju). Ivan INCP-sang song ‘Ivan started to sing (a/the song).’ b. Ivan po-čital (knigu). Ivan DLMT-read book ‘Ivan read (a book) for a little while.’

Fourth, in cases in which verbs have multiple prefixes, a superlexical prefix will appear farther from the root than the lexical prefix, as illustrated in (45) and (46).33 (45) vy-dat    ‘OUT-give’ a. po-vy-da-va-t b. *vy-po-da-va-t (46) od-stoupit    ‘FROM-step’ a. po-od-stoupit b. *od-po-stoupit

Finally, lexical prefixes and superlexical prefixes show the inverse compatibility patterns with respect to the time span adverbial and the durative phrase. Lexically prefixed verbs are compatible with a time span adverbial and incompatible with a durative phrase. This is the pattern noted above, repeated here in (47). (47) a.

Ja vypil butylku vina za čas/  *v tečeniji časa. I drank-perf. a-bottle of-wine in hour/during hour ‘I drank a bottle of wine in an hour/for an hour.’

b. Mary pročitala knigu za čas/  *v tečeniji časa. Mary read-perf. a book in hour/during hour ‘Mary read a book in an hour/for an hour.’ c.

Fermer pritasčil brevno v ambar The farmer dragged-perf. the log into the barn



za čas/  *v tečeniji časa. in hour/during hour



‘The farmer dragged the log into the barn in an hour/for an hour.’

.  Examples in (44) taken from Svenonius (2004: 235–236); Svenonius takes them from Babko-Malaya (2003). .  Examples in (45) and (46) taken from Gehrke (in press: 6) with a slight simplification to her examples.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

Superlexically prefixed verbs are incompatible with the time span adverbial and compatible with the durative phrase, illustrated in (48).34,35 In this way, they pattern with simplex imperfectives, shown in (49).36 (48) a.

Petja (po)iskal knigu polčasa/ *za polčasa Peter (PF-)look.for-pst book-acc half-hour/*in half-hour ‘Peter looked for a book for half an hour.’

b. Petja (pro)sidel v tjur’me pjat’ let/ *za pjat’ let Peter (PF-)sit-pst in prison five years/*in five years ‘Peter was in prison for five years.’ (49) a.

Ja pil butylku vina *za čas/v tečeniji časa. I drank-imp. a-bottle of-wine in hour/during hour ‘I drank a bottle of wine in an hour/for an hour.’

b. Mary čitala knigu *za čas/v tečeniji časa. Mary read-imp. a book in hour/during hour ‘Mary read a book in an hour/for an hour.’ c.

Fermer tasčil brevno v ambar The farmer dragged-imp. the log into the barn *za čas/v tečeniji časa. in hour/during hour ‘The farmer dragged the log into the barn in an hour/for an hour.’

I claim that the verbs with lexical prefixes have the structure originally proposed above for perfective verbs, repeated below in (50a). In contrast, I claim that verbs with superlexical prefixes have the structure in (50b) below, in which the prefix enters the syntax higher in the structure (see also di Sciullo & Slabakova 2005; Svenonius 2004; among others for approaches to superlexical prefixes similar in spirit).

.  Examples in (48) taken from Borik (2002: 55); I have simplified the gloss somewhat. .  The superlexical prefix za shows a different pattern. I discuss it in more detail in section 3.2.3 below. .  Filip (1999: 179) observes that in Czech the time span adverbial is acceptable “if the intended interpretation is inchoative (meaning that the denoted situation started after the indicated time interval)…”. It seems like the Czech time span adverbial behaves more like the English time span adverbial than the Russian time span adverbial does.



Chapter 5.  Minimalist variation in inner aspect 

(50)

a. v

VP〈fe〉 V 〈fe〉





b.

...vP

...XP〈fe〉 X 〈fe〉

...

VP〈ie〉 V 〈ie〉

...

〈ie〉 〈fe〉

These prefixes share the fundamental property that they introduce an 〈 fe〉 feature into the structure. I take the presence of this 〈 fe〉 with both lexical and superlexical prefixes to explain the same behavior with respect to tense entailments, embedding under phase verbs and embedding under the periphrastic future. These prefixes differ in the way that they enter the syntactic derivation.37 I assume that lexical prefixes are derivationally related to the simplex imperfective form of a verb.38 That is, just like English achievements, they are formed in the lexicon, resulting in the event feature configuration seen in (50a). In contrast, I assume that superlexical prefixes enter the syntactic derivation either merging directly on little v or projecting its own XP above vp.39 I assume that lexical prefixes combine with the verb via a lexical process, before entering the syntax. This is what we expect given that they share the same basic event feature configuration as English achievements. In contrast to English achievements, nevertheless, the 〈 fe〉 feature projects here, not the 〈ie〉 feature. Recall that I argued in chapter four that the event feature configuration of English achievements results from a Hale & Keyser (1993, 2002) style lexical derivation. Essentially, the lexical derivation, argued independently for denominal and deadjectival verbs, offers a way to understand the event feature configuration of achievements, in particular, why 〈ie〉 projects and not 〈 fe〉 in English. Taking

.  The present account has certain characteristics in common with di Sciullo & Slabakova’s (2005) account of Bulgarian prefixes. They assume that there is a particular T feature that the lexical and superlexical prefixes (internal and external in their terminology) share. They claim that the prefixes differ only in structural position. Their T feature has different properties from the 〈 fe〉 feature proposed here though. .  Filip (1999: 175–176) claims that this is the case for Czech as well, although she does not assume that superlexical and lexical prefixes are different classes of prefixes. .  A process something like merger in the sense of Halle & Marantz (1993, 1994) could be employed here to account for why the superlexical prefix and the verb surface as one word.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

an observation from Pereltsvaig (2003: 3), referencing Babyonyshev (1999), it seems that Russian has a very restricted number of denominal verbs. If in fact, the event feature configuration of English results from a specific lexical process, which is not as productive in Russian, we might understand why 〈ie〉 does not project in Russian lexically prefixed verbs. There may simply be a different lexical process involved.40 Assuming that the event feature configuration of lexical prefixes is the result of a lexical process allows for a straightforward account of Russian perfective verbs that are perfective without the presence of a prefix as well. We need only assume that the verb is lexically specified for the configuration in (50a). Assuming the structure in (50a) then, we can explain why these verbs cannot embed under phase verbs, as shown in (51a), and only an incompletive interpretation arises with počti, as shown in (51b); essentially they behave like lexically prefixed verbs. (51) a. *Mary perestala kupit’ pivo. Mary stopped to-buy-perf. beer ‘Mary stopped buying beer.’ b. Ja počti kupil pivo. I almost bought-perf. beer ‘I almost bought a beer.’

Assuming that lexically prefixed verbs result from a lexical derivational process, explains immediately why they tend to have idiosyncratic meanings, why they can appear in nominalizations, and why the argument structure of these verbs can be affected. These three properties are associated with lexical derivational processes. In contrast, since superlexical prefixes enter narrow syntax directly, the compositional meanings of superlexically prefixed verbs, their rarity in nominalizations and the lack of affect on argument structure fall out immediately. Moreover, since lexical prefixes combine with the verb in the lexicon, earlier than superlexical prefixes, we can understand why superlexical prefixes always appear farther from the verb than lexical prefixes. Finally, if we follow Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria (2004) by assuming that temporal modifiers modify the relevant portion of temporal structure by adjoining directly to the corresponding portion of phrase structure, then we can explain straightforwardly the different time span adverbial and durative phrase patterns shown by simplex imperfectives, lexically prefixed verbs and superlexically prefixed verbs. I assume the time span adverbial and the durative phrase in Russian .  If this is the case, it entails the existence of some type of relation between word formation, or general lexical processes, and aspectual structure. A relation of this type is explicitly claimed to exist in Beck & Snyder (2001: 114).



Chapter 5.  Minimalist variation in inner aspect 

adjoin to vp to modify es directly.41 The time span adverbial adjoins to a vp with an 〈ie〉 feature in its label, and the durative to a vp with an 〈 fe〉 feature in its label.42 The time span adverbial can appear with lexically prefixed verbs because the 〈 fe〉 feature of the event feature configuration is visible on vp, as illustrated in (52). ...vP

(52) v

VP〈fe〉 VP〈fe〉

V 〈fe〉



time span ...

〈ie〉 〈fe〉

In contrast, the durative phrase can appear with simplex imperfectives and superlexical prefixes because the 〈 fe〉 feature does not block the 〈ie〉 feature from projecting to vp; in the case of the simplex imperfective this is because there is no 〈 fe〉 feature in the structure, and in the case of superlexically prefixed verbs this is because the superlexical prefix merges above vp. This is illustrated in (53a) and (53b) respectively. (53)

a.

b.

...vP v

VP〈ie〉 VP〈ie〉





V

... XP〈fe〉 X 〈fe〉

VP〈ie〉

durative ...

VP〈ie〉

V

durative ...

.  In this way, the Russian durative differs from the English durative. Note that the Russian durative cannot elicit an iterative interpretation of a predicate, while it can in English. This may suggest different adjunction sites for the durative phrases in the two languages. See Csirmaz (forthcoming) for a structural account of the different interpretations elicited by the durative phrase. .  This account is similar to Szucsich (2002: 255 n.6) who claims that there is an AspP projection above vP, and when AspP has a [–pf] (i.e., – perfective) feature the durative phrase can adjoin to it. See also Pereltsvaig (2000) for a similar account.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

Moreover, assuming the case assigning mechanisms in Chomsky (2000, 2001), in which v assigns accusative case under a probe-goal relation, the accusative case on durative phrases in Russian falls outs from the structural configuration proposed in (53). The durative is closer to v than the internal argument dp. Therefore, the durative is in a position to Agree with v. Given that it does not have a full set of φ-features, there cannot be a full match between v and the durative, and consequently, v can still act as a probe for dp and assign it accusative case as well. This is a positive consequence of this analysis as it has been claimed that case on the durative phrase in Russian is structural in nature (Pereltsvaig 2000: 156; Szucsich 2002: 251). 3.2.3  Superlexical prefixes, telicity and speculating about za The account of superlexical prefixes here has implications for our understanding of the relation between inner aspect and endpoints. For, recall that superlexical prefixes introduce an 〈 fe〉 feature into the derivation, and therefore an endpoint – recall the entailments from (33) to (35) above – yet the time span adverbial is not compatible, while the durative phrase is. The (in)compatibility of these adverbials are typically taken to be tests for the (a)telicity of a predicate. Therefore, the conclusion to draw is that superlexically prefixed verbs express an endpoint, but are atelic; this may be unexpected, given the often supposed relation between endpoints and telicity. One possible explanation is that an endpoint alone is not enough to result in a telic interpretation of the predicate, and that structure plays an important role as well. If the element introducing the endpoint is not introduced low enough in the structure, the endpoint will not give rise to a telic interpretation. This seems to be the case in Russian. Moreover, as we saw in chapter two, section 3 something similar occurs in English with ambiguous locationgoal PPs, when, on the location interpretation, the pp falls outside the domain of aspectual interpretation. Furthermore, recall that I argued in chapter three that the aspectual properties of a predicate were calculated at Transfer to CI at the vP phase. There is no reason to believe that this should be different for Russian; therefore, since superlexical prefixes are merged above vp, and assuming that Transfer to CI takes the complement of little v, we would expect that the 〈 fe〉 feature of a superlexical prefix does not contribute subevent structure, although it still adds an endpoint, similar to what happens with goal Ps in English in the presence of a [–q] np internal argument (see chapter three, section 3). If this is on the right track, then we can still conclude that a Russian prefix gives rise to a telic interpretation when it is compatible with the time span adverbial. Moreover we can conclude that the time span adverbial is an indication that the prefix enters low enough in the verb phrase to contribute subevent structure to the event describe by the predicate.



Chapter 5.  Minimalist variation in inner aspect 

With these assumptions made, consider the superlexical prefix inceptive za. Observe that, in contrast to other superlexical prefixes, it is incompatible with the durative and compatible with the time span adverbial, illustrated in (54).43 (54) Kompjuter zarabotal za čas/*čas Computer PF-worked-pst.sg.masc. in an hour/* hour ‘Computer started working in an hour/*for an hour.’

The interpretation of the time span adverbial is that after an hour passed, the computer started to work. Initially, this may be understood to mean that the time span adverbial is modifying the beginning of the event, instead of the end. As Borik (2002: 62) notes, however, “Due to the lexical semantic properties of this class of verbs, “in X time” measures the duration of the so-called “preparatory stage”. ” Therefore the time span does not target the beginning of the event per se, but it targets the end of the beginning of the event; what seems to be the result of modifying the beginning of the event results from aspectually independent lexical semantic properties of the prefix in combination with the verb. This recalls the interpretation of almost with vidms from chapter four, section 1.1.1. In this respect, za behaves more like a lexical prefix than a superlexical prefix, if we assume that the compatibility of the time span adverbial is indicative of the position of the prefix. By assumption then, za would be related lexically to the imperfective form of a verb. Let us assume that this is so. Note that assuming this does not require that there be a noncompositional interpretation, or that there be an effect on argument structure, like other lexical prefixes. These are tendencies as the result of lexical processes, not necessities. Finally, contrast briefly the interpretation of počti “almost” with za and na in (55) and (56) respectively. (55) Kompjuter počti zarabotal. Computer almost za-work ‘The computer almost started working.’ (56) *Olja počti nabrala gribov. Olga almost na-pick mushrooms ‘Olga almost picked a lot of mushrooms.’

First observe that počti is grammatical with za but not with na. Sentence (56) is grammatical if počti is removed, or in the presence of počti something like na uzhin “for dinner” is added. The interpretation of počti in (55) is the expected: the computer almost started to work; or, more precisely, the end of the preparatory stage of the computer starting to work was almost reached. For počti in (56) there

.  Example in (54) taken from Borik (2002: 62)

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

is no clear interpretation. That počti receives an interpretation with za is not unexpected if za patterns (structurally) with lexical prefixes. That počti does not receive an interpretation with na may result from na merging higher in the verb phrase, perhaps higher than almost itself. The structural position of superlexical prefixes may be the source of the incompatibility with počti. I leave the discussion here open ended, as a more detailed exploration of the interaction of počti with superlexical prefixes must be carried out. Nevertheless, the initial contrast between za and na suggests the possibility that za can be treated as a lexical prefix. 3.2.4  Lexically prefixed verbs are achievements If the analysis of Russian lexical perfective forms is correct, there is at least one major consequence worth mentioning: they are all achievements. An example typically assumed to have an accomplishment interpretation when in the perfective in Russian corresponds to predicates in English that are incremental theme verbs, like eat or drink. An example of this predicate is given in Russian in (57a) and in English in (57b). (57) a.

Ja vypil butylku vina. I drank-perf. a-bottle of-wine ‘I drank a bottle of wine.’

b. I drank a bottle of wine.

It is tempting to assume that these predicates should be of the same aspectual type, but there is no reason for them to be. As I will argue in chapter six, section 3.1 the lexical meaning of a verb is independent of the aspectual type of the predicate it heads (see also Borer 2005: 69–70; Ritter & Rosen 1998: 139); there is nothing in the type of action expressed by the verb that tells us whether it should be an accomplishment or an achievement when telic. Observe in English that there is more than one way to express the action of ingesting liquids, as illustrated in (58). (58) Geoffrey had a bottle of wine (with lunch).

The predicate in (58) behaves like an achievement, in contrast to the predicate in (57b). Compare the interpretations elicited by almost in (59). (59) a. Geoffrey almost drank a bottle of wine. b. Geoffrey almost had a bottle of wine.

There are two interpretations available in (59a) with the verb drink, a counterfactual and an incompletive. There is only one interpretation available with have in (59b), a counterfactual interpretation. Moreover, note the difference of interpretation in the stop control construction in (60).



Chapter 5.  Minimalist variation in inner aspect 

(60) a. Geoffrey stopped drinking the bottle of wine. b. ??Geoffrey stopped having the bottle of wine.

With drink a single event interpretation is available, while with have only an iterative interpretation is available, if it is available at all. Although the action expressed by these verbs is fundamentally the same, one surfaces in a predicate that is an accomplishment, and the other in a predicate that is an achievement. On the present account, all Russian verbs with lexical prefixes are achievements. I take the unambiguous interpretation of almost with these lexically prefixed perfectives as evidence. Furthermore, Filip (1999: 185 n. 16) notes the following: Dahl (1985), for example gives the following characterization of the perfective aspect along these lines: “A PFV verb will typically denote a single event, seen as an unanalyzed whole … More often than not, the event will be punctual or, at least, it will be seen as a single transition from one state to its opposite, the duration of which can be disregarded (p.13). Comrie (1976: 16) sums up the “totality” characterization of the perfective in the following way: “…perfectivity indicates the view of a situation as a single whole, without distinction of the various separate phases that make up that situation…”

These intuitions regarding the aspectual interpretation of the perfective form of verbs reflects the punctual nature of the event described by predicates in which the verb is in perfective. This punctual nature falls out from the configuration of the event features in the syntax of Russian lexically prefixed perfective verbs proposed here.

3.2.5  A brief note on Russian statives In theory, there is a possible third type of predicate in which there are no event features: statives. Filip (1999: 201) notes for Czech that “Static state verbs have no corresponding derived perfective counterparts at all.” Dickey (2000: 10) notes for Russian (and claims for Slavic more generally) that, “A small number of other verbs are imperfectiva tantum (all of which are stative verbs), which have no pv partners, e.g., znat’ “know”, nenavidet’ “hate”, otsutstvovat’ “be absent”, etc.” In terms of the system developed here, this may result from the inability of the big V of statives to bear any event feature at all, resulting in the lack of subevent structure for statives. Some evidence for this possibility comes from the lack of interpretation elicited by počti “almost” with these statives: *Mary počti znala fermera. “Mary almost knew a farmer.” *Mary počti nenavidela pivo. “Mary almost hated beer.” If there were no 〈ie〉 (or 〈 fe〉) present, we can explain these facts. However, we would also expect that statives could not be embedded under phase verbs. However, not

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

all stative predicates are ungrammatical under phase verbs: *Mary perestala znat’ fermera. “Mary stopped knowing the farmer.”  But, Mary perestala nenavidet’ pivo. “Mary stopped hating beer.” It may be the case that Russian statives are like English statives in that in certain constructions they behave more stative-like (i.e., John loves this movie), and in others they behave more eventive-like (i.e., John is loving this movie.). If an 〈ie〉 feature needs to be present to be embedded under a phase verb, then it seems possible that some statives can allow for the presence of this 〈ie〉 feature and embed under phase verbs; this, of course, with consequence for interpretation. I leave any further development of these facts and this possible approach for future research. There is still much work to be done on stative predicates in general. 4.  Minimalist variation and Bulgarian briefly As we have just seen, one way to account for language variation is by the presence vs. absence of a projection. English has AspP in its inventory of functional projections, and Russian does not. Moreover, AspP is not always present in the verb phrase in English. It is present in English eventive predicates and absent in statives predicates. Moreover, the presence or absence of AspP in English was shown to be optional: these are stative-eventive aspectually variable predicates. A picture of language variation begins to form in which we cannot necessarily distinguish between cross-linguistic, intra-linguistic, or optional variation. Variation is just variation. From a minimalist perspective this is not entirely surprising since, if the elements undergoing cross-linguistic variation had to be marked differently from elements undergoing intra-linguistic variation and both differently from those undergoing optional variation, there would be a multiplicity of elements generated which would add to computational complexity. Note that if in fact variation is just variation, we might actually expect that there is a language that is aspectually like Russian, but that has some predicates in which AspP is present and some in which AspP is not present. This would follow because, as we have seen, AspP is a variable element. I put forth Bulgarian as this possible language. Like other Slavic languages it has prefixes that change the predicate from atelic to telic independently of the nature of the internal argument, although interestingly it also has some verbs whose internal argument affects the telicity of the predicate (Slabakova 1997: 692).44 Slabakova calls these biaspectual

.  More research into the properties of these verbs of course would be necessary to confirm this. See chapter eight for a discussion of a possible correlation between the ote mapping, the



Chapter 5.  Minimalist variation in inner aspect 

verbs noting that they are late borrowings into the language. The examples in (61) and (62), taken from Slabakova (1997: 692), show this affect of the internal argument on the aspectual interpretation of the predicate. Superscript I stands for Imperfective; superscript P for perfective. (61) a.

(durative) Mexanicite remontiraxaI/P koli. Mechanics-det repair-3pS/past cars ‘The mechanics repaired cars.’

b.

(terminative) Mexanicite remontiraxaI/P kolata. Mechanics-det repair-3pS/past car-det ‘The mechanics repaired the car.’

(62) a.

(durative) Policaite arestuvaxaI/P ženi. Policemen-det arrest-3pS/past women ‘The policemen arrested women.’

b.

(terminative) Policaite arestuvaxaI/P ženata. Policemen-det arrest-3pS/past woman-det ‘The policemen arrested the woman.’

From a minimalist perspective in which “less machinery is better than more” (Chomsky 2000: 144 n. 60) a reduction of elements that enter into computation increases computational efficiency. This leads to a picture of language variation as discussed here in which there is no formal distinction between cross-linguistic variation and intra-linguistic variation: variation is just variation.

sse interpretation of bps and the ability of a P to form a pp-accomplishments. Bulgarian may prove to be decisive with respect to these speculated correlations.

chapter 6

The autonomy of inner aspect In this chapter, I argue that inner aspect is an autonomous system within natural language. I discuss several ways in which the properties of inner aspect are independent of other syntactic and semantic phenomena. Specifically, in section 1, I address the lexical autonomy of inner aspect. Assuming that event features enter the syntax from the lexicon associated with certain heads, lexical autonomy essentially reduces to the independence of event features from the heads (and therefore the projections) on which they appear. In section 2, I address syntactic autonomy; I argue that case and aspect are independent syntactic relations. I also offer an explanation of the apparent direct relation between case and aspect in Finnish. In section 3, I focus on semantic autonomy. First I discuss how es is independent of lexical meaning, how the lexical meaning of a head does not determine whether or not an 〈 fe〉 feature appears on it. I also discuss how es is independent of thematic relations. In this discussion I address the possible relation between the ote mapping and Dowty’s (1991) proto-patient role. The general conclusion of this chapter is that inner aspect is a system within language that shows enough autonomy to be treated as an independent system.

1.  Lexical autonomy 1.1  Event features are independent of heads Recall that in English, event features enter the syntax on different heads. For the moment consider only the 〈 fe〉 feature. It can enter the syntax on Asp, big V, or P. These heads enter the syntax from the lexicon, where it is assumed that the 〈 fe〉 feature is associated with them. Clearly if the 〈 fe〉 feature can appear on either of these heads, the 〈 fe〉 feature is independent of them. The lexical independence of features is expected if Chomsky’s (2000: 109) assumptions about the epp feature are correct: it is an optional element and it can vary cross-linguistically. Its variability in terms of presence vs. absence on a projection entails that it is not dependent

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

on the projection on which it appears. This can be seen to be true for the 〈 fe〉 feature with respect to Asp and big V through a simple comparison of the basic aspectual syntactic structures of the achievement predicate in (1a) and the accomplishment predicate in (1b). (1)

a.

...vP v

b.



〈ie〉 〈fe〉



v

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

V V

...vP AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

...

V〈fe〉 V 〈fe〉

...

Superficially, it looks like the 〈 fe〉 feature moves from Asp in (1a) to big V in (1b). This can only happen if the feature is not dependent on the projection on which it appears. A comparison of the basic aspectual syntactic properties of a pp-accomplishment in (2a) and those of an activity that takes a directional preposition in (2b) leads us to the same conclusion. (2)

a.

b.

...vP v

VP



P 〈fe〉

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

PP〈fe〉

V



v

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

...vP

VP PP

V ...

P

...

Consider the 〈ie〉 feature now. Although in English the 〈ie〉 feature consistently enters narrow syntax on AspP, we have seen in Russian, that there is no AspP, and yet there is evidence for an 〈ie〉 feature. Thus, it seems that the 〈ie〉 feature is also independent of the head on which it is introduced. This independence is illustrated through a comparison of an English activity in (3a) and a Russian imperfective in (3b).



Chapter 6.  The autonomy of inner aspect 

(3)

a.

b.

...vP v





v

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

VP V

...vP VP〈ie〉 V 〈ie〉

...

...

The lexical independence of event features has implications for the relation between argument structure and es as well; for, if these features are independent of the projections on which they appear, and the projections of a verb reflect its argument structure, it follows that these event features are independent of the argument structure of a verb. That is, es is independent of argument structure (cf. Borer 2005; Levin 1999; Ramchand 2003; among others). I do not attempt to empirically support this conclusion, but note that Hale & Keyser (2002: 224) arrive at the same conclusion from the other direction, from a discussion of argument structure.

2.  Syntactic autonomy 2.1  Aspect is independent of case Some have argued for a direct syntactic relation between case and aspect. More specifically it is often suggested that the assignment of accusative case is tied to the interpretation of a predicate as telic. The argument that receives accusative case is the argument that participates in the ote mapping (Borer 2005: 79–81; Kratzer 2004: 389; Ritter & Rosen 2000: 196; among others).1 In this section I argue that the ote mapping and case are independent syntactic relations. Specifically, I argue that a telic interpretation of a predicate is not dependent on the presence of accusative case, and an atelic interpretation of the predicate is not dependent on the lack of accusative case. In section 2.1.1, I show how the system proposed in chapter two predicts that case and aspect are independent syntactic relations. Stative predicates, passive constructions and unaccusatives show that this prediction is borne out. In section 2.1.2

.  Van Hout (2004) assumes that a direct object checks a telicity feature via Spec, Head agreement in AgrOP, the position where strong Case is assigned.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

I offer an account of the accusative-partitive case alternation in Finnish, which is often put forth to support a direct relation between case and aspect. 2.1.1  The object-to-event mapping is a relation with Asp Some scholars working on inner aspect assume that there is a direct syntactic relation between case and aspect, often relegating accusative case assignment to the functional projection responsible for the ote mapping (Schmitt 1996: 35; Ritter & Rosen 2000: 196). Conclusions of this nature have been based on data similar to the following from Finnish in (4).2 (4) a.

Maija luki kirjaa tunnin. M. read book-part. hour-acc. ‘Maija read the book for an hour.’

b. Maija luki kirjan *tunnin M. read book-acc. hour-acc. ‘Maija read (all) the book for an hour.’

In (4a) the object appears in partitive case and the durative is compatible. In (4b) the object appears in accusative case and the durative is incompatible. There appears to be a strong correlation between the presence of accusative case on the internal argument and a telic interpretation of the predicate. Note, nevertheless, that I argued in chapter two that the ote mapping is syntactically instantiated via Agree with Asp. Moreover, assuming Chomsky (2000, 2001), accusative case is instantiated via Agree with little v. It follows that case and aspect must be two independent syntactic relations. More specifically, given the two separate heads, we have two expectations: 1. The possibility of the ote mapping without accusative case appearing on the argument participating in this mapping; i.e., a syntactic relation established with Asp, but not with little v; and 2. The possibility of accusative case on an argument that does not participate in the ote mapping; i.e., a syntactic relation established with little v, but not with Asp. We will see that both of these expectations are met. Let us evaluate expectation number one first. Consider the unaccusatives in (5) to (7). (5) a. The keg of beer arrived (at the party) b. The bottle broke

#for an hour. #for an hour.

(6) a. Beer arrived (at the party) b. Glass broke

for an hour. for an hour.

(7) a. Kegs arrived (at the party) b. Bottles broke

for an hour. for an hour.

.  Examples in (4) taken from Heinämäki (1984: 154–155).



Chapter 6.  The autonomy of inner aspect 

The [±q] feature of the derived subject of an unaccusative affects the telicity of the predicate. Specifically, in (5) the derived subject is [+q] and the event described by the predicate is interpreted as telic; thus, the durative phrase is incompatible. In (6), the derived subject is [–q] and the event is interpreted as atelic; thus, the durative phrase is compatible. There is an ote mapping and the np participating in it is in nominative case. Moreover, a bp subject elicits an sse interpretation as well, illustrated in (7), suggesting that AspP is in fact still present although accusative case (or little v itself), is not. Passives make the point even shaper. Observe first the active form of the standard accomplishments in (8) to (10).3 (8) a. John drank the bottle of beer b. John built the stereo

#for an hour. #for an hour

(9) a. John drank beer b. John built stereo equipment

for an hour. for an hour.

(10) a. John drank bottles of beer b. John built stereos

for an hour. for an hour.

The same ote mapping and bp interpretation observed for the internal arguments in the active form of these accomplishments are observed for the derived subjects in their passive form illustrated in (11) to (13). (11) a. The bottle of beer was drunk b. The stereo was built

#for an hour. #for an hour.

(12) a. Beer was drunk b. Stereo equipment was built

for an hour. for an hour.

(13) a. Bottles of beer were drunk b. Stereos were built

for an hour. for an hour.

The derived subjects of passives and unaccusatives participate in the ote mapping.4 This suggests that AspP is present in the syntax. At the same time, however, these arguments are in nominative case. The lack of nominative suggests that v cannot assign accusative case (or is not present at all). The first expectation is met. The second expectation is that there should be predicates in which there is no ote mapping, but accusative case is still available. Stative predicates show that this expectation is met; for, as we saw in chapter five, section 1 there is no ote mapping in statives. These data are repeated below in (14).

.  The sentences in (8) and (10) are standard accomplishments, although the sentences in (9) are not, since they are atelic. I retain the use of standard accomplishment for ease of exposition. .  Borer (1998) discusses similar data.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

(14) a. John owned stereo equipment/a T.V. b. John knew gaming software/the answer

for a month. for a while.

Stative predicates lack AspP in their syntax. This explains the lack of ote mapping in (14), as well as the lack of sse interpretation and the lack of domain of aspectual interpretation discussed in chapter five, section 1. Nevertheless, the internal argument here is in accusative case. Expectation two is met. A predicate can be telic without accusative case and accusative case can be present without a predicate being telic. The patterns we have seen with the unaccusatives, passives and statives are not expected in a language in which there is a direct syntactic relation between case and aspect. Thus, we can conclude that there is no direct syntactic relation between case and aspect in English. Let us consider Finnish. 2.1.2  Accounting for Finnish case and aspect If there is a direct syntactic relation between case an aspect in Finnish, then we do not expect to find the same patterns for passives, unaccusatives and statives in Finnish that we find in English.5 Consider the active-passive pair in (15) and the unaccusatives in (16) first.6 (15) a.

Hän luki kirjan. s/he read.pst book.acc ‘S/he read the book (and finished it).’

b. Kirja luettiin. book.nom was-read ‘The book was read (and finished).’ (16) a.

Vieraat saapuivat. guests-nom. arrived ‘The guests arrived.’

b. Karhu-t kuol-i-vat. bear-plNom die-Pst-3pl ‘The bears died.’

.  Note that Kiparsky (1998: 283) argues for a notion of boundedness that regulates the case patterns in Finnish. He explicitly claims that boundedness is not telicity. If this is true, then Finnish is not an example of a language in which there is a direct relation between case and aspect. Nevertheless, I still provide a discussion of Finnish case and aspect as a way to understand why the conclusion might be drawn that there is a direct relation between case and aspect. .  Examples in (15) taken from Pereltsvaig (2000: 168). The example in (16a) is taken from Henänämaki (1984: 176 n. 20). The example in (16b) is from Kiparsky (1998: 297).



Chapter 6.  The autonomy of inner aspect 

The internal argument is in accusative in the active construction in (15a) and the predicate is interpreted as describing a telic event. In the passive counterpart in (15b), the derived subject is in nominative and the predicate is still interpreted as describing a telic event. This is the same pattern found in English. Observe also that the derived subjects of the unaccusatives in (16) are in nominative as well. These patterns are not expected from a language in which there is a direct syntactic relation between case and aspect. Now consider statives in Finnish in (17).7 (17) a.

Omist-it nämä talo-t vuode-n (*vuode-ssa) Own-2sg these-acc house-pl acc year-acc (year-iness) ‘You owned these houses for a year (*in an year).’

b. Tunnen hänet hyvin epätäydellisesti. I-know her-acc very incompletely ‘I know her very incompletely.’

Just as in English, these stative predicates are atelic, and the internal arguments surface in accusative case. The case patterns of the stative predicates in (17) and of the passive and unaccusatives in (15) and in (16) respectively in Finnish strongly suggest that case and aspect in Finnish are independent syntactic relations as in English. To account for the apparent case-aspect relation observed above in (4) from Finnish, I propose the structure in (18) for the telic-accusative sentences in Finnish. (18)

...vP v′

DP Maija

v

AspP VP

Asp V luki





NP kirjan (Acc.)

.  The example in (17a) is from Kiparsky (1998: 283). The example in (17b) is from Henämäki (1984: 165)

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

I assume that accusative case is assigned via Agree with little v. In the structure in (18) the internal argument can freely Agree with v. Given the structural proximity of v to Asp, there is no syntactic reason why the internal argument cannot Agree with Asp as well. Thus, I assume that when accusative case appears on the internal argument, the internal argument np can Agree with Asp and does so, valuing it such that the predicate is interpreted as telic. The structure I propose for the atelic-partitive constructions of Finnish is given in (19).8 (19)

...vP v′

VP Maija

v

AspP VP

Asp V luki

XP X





Blocks Agree

NP kirjaa (Part.)

I assume that the argument in partitive is the complement of a null X that is in turn a complement of the verb. I assume that this null X is responsible for partitive case on kirjaa. With respect to aspect, I assume that the null XP blocks Agree with Asp. Minimally, the np kirjaa does not Agree with v, otherwise it would surface with accusative case; thus, it is likely that it cannot Agree with Asp either. I assume that the extra structure blocks these Agree relations. Consider the sentences in (20) in English; they have a similar structural configuration with the same aspectual result.9 (20) a. John complained to his boss b. Fred talked to his buddy

for an hour. for an hour.

The nps boss and buddy are [+q]nps; regardless, the predicates are atelic. This is especially telling considering that the presence of a goal preposition typically .  Schmitt (1996: 66–67) makes a similar proposal, assuming that X here is P, although she still assumes a direct relation between accusative case and aspect. .  Thanks to Bill McClure for pointing these data out to me and for a discussion of them as well.



Chapter 6.  The autonomy of inner aspect 

results in a telic interpretation of the predicate in which it surfaces, as we have seen. Consider an important fact about the verbs in (20): they cannot take internal arguments, regardless of the presence of the goal phrase. This is illustrated in (21). (21) a. John complained (*his pay) to his boss. b. Fred talked (*the story) to his buddy.

I assume that the overt prepositional phrase here has the same blocking effect as the null XP in the Finnish partitive constructions and I propose the structure in (22) to account for the sentences in (20) from English. (22)

...vP v′

DP John

v

AspP VP

Asp V complain

PP P to





Blocks Agree

DP his boss

The parallel syntactic configuration resulting in the same aspectual effect lends support to the proposal that the overt pp in English and the null XP in Finnish block Agree with Asp. The result of this blocking is that there is no np to Agree with Asp. If no np Agrees with Asp, Asp  receives a default [–q] value and the predicate is interpreted as atelic, as discussed in chapter three, section 3. Given these patterns, I conclude that the extra structure in Finnish is responsible for the atelic interpretation of the predicate. I also assume that this extra structure is the source of partitive case as well. This entails that partitive case in Finnish is not structural (cf. Borer 2005). If partitive is not structural, we might expect that an np that is in partitive can remain in partitive even after movement. This is what we find with the active-passive pairs in (23) and the unaccusatives in (24).10,11

.  The examples in (23) are taken from Pereltsvaig (2000: 168). .  The example in (24a) is taken from Heinämäki (1984: 176 n.20). The example in (24b) is taken from Kiparsky (1998: 297).

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

(23) a.

Hän luki kirjaa. s/he read.pst book.part ‘S/he read the book (for a while).’

b. Kirjaa luettiin. book.part was-read ‘The book was read (for a while).’ (24) a.

Vieraita saapuivat. guests-part arrived ‘Guests arrived.’

b. Karrhu-j-a kuol-I. bear-pl part die-pst-3sg ‘Bears died.’

The derived subjects of passives and unaccusatives in Finnish can remain in partitive. This suggests that partitive is a non-structural case and lends further support to the structure in (19) proposed to account for the Finnish partitive construction. I have argued that case and aspect are independent syntactic relations. Accusative case is an Agree relation with little v (Chomsky 2000, 2001) and the ote mapping is an Agree relation with Asp. This conclusion does not entail that there is no relation at all between case and aspect. For if we assume that the presence of accusative case indicates a specific syntactic position in the verb phrase, then the presence of accusative case on a particular argument can indicate which argument is in this syntactic position. Given that the argument in this syntactic position enters into the ote mapping with the predicate, accusative case can indirectly be related to the aspectual interpretation of the predicate. However, this case-aspect relation is at best indirect, for, as we saw above, the ote mapping can still be present even though accusative case is not. Thus, while there may be an indirect relation between the presence of accusative case and the argument that participates in the ote mapping, case and aspect are still independent syntactic relations.

3.  Semantic autonomy In this section I provide evidence that suggests that the semantic contribution of aspect to the predicate is independent from the thematic relations expressed by a predicate as well as the specific lexical meaning contributed by verbs and prepositions. This is in line with recent assumptions regarding the relation between es and lexical meaning (Borer 2005: 121–122; Levin 1999: 6; Ritter & Rosen 1998: 139). In section 3.1, I discuss the independence of lexical meaning and es. In section 3.2 I discuss the independence of thematic relations and es.



Chapter 6.  The autonomy of inner aspect 

3.1  Event structure is independent of lexical meaning We saw in chapter five that there were some verbs that varied between a stative and an eventive interpretation (e.g., cover, surround, think). This reduced to the presence of Asp in the predicate on the eventive interpretation and its absence on the stative interpretation. From this variability it follows that Asp is not dependent on the lexical meaning of these verbs; otherwise, it would either always be present or always be absent. Recall the discussion of Russian from chapter five as well. Russian verbs in the simplex imperfective forms are all atelic; many of these Russian verbs correspond to English accomplishments. When the (lexical) prefix is added all of these verbs become telic; many of these prefixed verbs correspond to English activities. This also suggests that lexical meaning is independent of es. In this section I provide further evidence that lexical meaning and es are independent of each other. If es were dependent on lexical meaning, we would not expect the same verb to have different es within the same language nor would we expect it to have different es across languages. However, we do find this. es in the present system is determined by the event features of a predicate. Variability in es reduces then to the presence vs. absence of an event feature on a particular verb or preposition. I do no discuss the 〈ie〉 feature here, since it always appears on Asp, in English, by stipulation. Instead the discussion centers on the presence vs. absence of the 〈 fe〉 feature on Asp, on big V, and on P. 3.1.1  〈 fe〉 on Asp Observe in (25) an aspectually variable class of predicates, often referred to as degree achievements. (25) a. The workers widened the street for a week/in an week. b. Jackie thawed the meat for an hour/in an hour.

These are argued to vary between an activity and an achievement interpretation (Dowty 1979: 88–90; among others; cf. Hay, Kennedy, Levin 1999: 127 n. 1). Both the durative phrase and the time span adverbial are compatible under particular interpretations. With the durative, there is a typical activity interpretation, in which the street underwent widening for a week, as in (25a), and the meat underwent thawing for an hour, as in (25b). With the time span adverbial the only interpretation available is one in which the amount of time before the event begins is expressed: the start-time interpretation. Thus, in (25a), only after a week passed did the street widen; and in (25b) only after an hour did the meat thaw. Recall from chapter three that the time span adverbial and it takes x-time elicit the same interpretations. Recall furthermore, that activities and achievements with it takes x-time result in the same interpretation. The only interpretation

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

that should be available, if there is an ambiguity between an achievement and an activity, is a start-time interpretation. Consider these data in (26). (26) a. It took the workers a week to widen the street. b. It took Jackie an hour to thaw the meat.

Like the interpretation of the time span adverbial in (25), (26a) can only mean that after a week passed, the street became wide. Likewise (26b) can only mean that after an hour, the meat became thaw. These facts are consistent with an ambiguity between an achievement and an activity interpretation, but do not unequivocally show that there is an ambiguity. The progressive-to-perfect entailment test discussed in chapter four in principle can differentiate between these two interpretations. What we expect in these ambiguous achievement-activity predicates is that there is an interpretation available in which the entailment holds (on an activity reading), and one in which the entailment does not hold (on an achievement reading). We seem to find both entailment possibilities, illustrated in (27) and (28), suggesting that these predicates are in fact ambiguous. (27) The workers are widening the street. →/ The workers have widened the street. (28) Jackie is thawing the meat. →/ Jackie has thawed the meat.

The structure corresponding to the achievement interpretation is in (29a) and the structure corresponding to the activity interpretation is in (29b). (29)

a.

...vP v

b.





v

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉 〈ie〉 〈fe〉

VP V

...vP AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

...

VP V

...

The difference between these two interpretations reduces to whether Asp has an 〈 fe〉 feature on it or not. On the achievement interpretation in (29a) it does, and on the activity interpretation in (29b) it does not. The lexical meaning of these verbs does not determine whether or not 〈 fe〉 appears on Asp, otherwise we would expect that it either always does or always does not appear on Asp.



Chapter 6.  The autonomy of inner aspect 

Interestingly, in Spanish, the predicates headed by the verbs corresponding to English widen and thaw are unambiguously interpreted as achievements.12 Consequently, only the time span adverbial is compatible as illustrated in (30). (30) a.

Los trabajadores ensancharon la calle The workers widened the street #durante una semana/en una semana. #for a week /in a week ‘The workers widened the street for a week/in a week.’

b. Juana descongeló el trozo de carne Juana thawed the piece of meat

#durante una hora/en una hora. #for an hour/in an hour ‘Juana thawed the piece of meat for an hour/in an hour.’

Note that the progressive-to-perfect entailment fails also, as indicated in (31) and (32). (31) Los trabajadores están ensanchado la calle.13 The workers are widening the street Los trabajadores han ensanchado la calle. The workers have widened the street (32) Juana está descongelando el trozo de carne. Juana is thawing the piece of meat Juana ha descongelado el trozo de carne. Juana has thawed the piece of meat

The Spanish predicates headed by verbs corresponding to English thaw and widen are not aspectually variable. We would not expect this if the es of a predicate were dependent on the lexical meaning of the verb, we would expect the same es pro­ perties for English and Spanish.14

.  McClure (1993: 322–323) claims that Italian correre “run” can be interpreted as an achievement. In English, run is interpreted as an activity. This is also unexpected if es is determined by lexical meaning. .  There do seem to be some speakers that allow an entailment here. .  It may be the case that there is something common to the lexical meaning expressed by aspectually variable verbs such that they are aspectually variable verbs. The presence of this common property could in theory allow us to predict which verbs are aspectually variable and which are not. Nevertheless, it is not clear what that common property could be.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

3.1.2  〈 fe〉 on big V Observe in (33) another class of predicate that is compatible with both a durative phrase and a time span adverbial. (33) a. John read the newspaper b. John washed the car

in an hour/for an hour. in an hour/for an hour.

These facts suggest that these predicates can be interpreted as telic or atelic; they are aspectually variable. On the atelic interpretation they pattern with activities, and on the telic interpretation they pattern with accomplishments. Note that in the it takes x-time construction, there is an ambiguous interpretation, illustrated in (34). (34) a. It took John an hour to read the book. b. It took John an hour to wash the car.

Both an end-time and start-time interpretation are available with these predicates. These two interpretations are consistent with an ambiguity between an activity interpretation and an accomplishment interpretation. Although, note also that the two interpretations from the it takes x-time construction are consistent with a predicate that is unambiguously an accomplishment also. Regardless, the compatibility of the durative phrase suggests that, in fact, there is an activity interpretation available for these predicates.15 On the activity interpretation the aspectual syntactic structure is as in (35a) and on the accomplishment interpretation the aspectual syntactic structure is as in (35b). (35)

a.

...vP

v

b.

VP VP





v

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

...vP AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

...

VP〈fe〉 V 〈fe〉

...

The variability between an activity interpretation and an accomplishment interpretation reduces to the absence vs. presence of 〈 fe〉 on big V. It is absent on the activity interpretation, and present on the accomplishment interpretation. This again indicates that there are two different event structures associated with the same lexical meaning. Lexical meaning cannot determine the es of the predicate. .  Observe also that interpretations of almost cannot disambiguate between the accomplishment and activity interpretations either: John almost read the book; for the interpretation with an activity is a subset of the interpretations with an accomplishment.



Chapter 6.  The autonomy of inner aspect 

As a final note with respect to these aspectually variable predicates, consider the progressive-to-perfect test in (36) and (37). We expect that on the accomplishment interpretation the entailment does not hold, while on the activity interpretation the entailment does hold. (36) John is reading the newspaper. ??­→/ John has read the newspaper. (37) John is washing the car. ??­→/ John has washed the car.

It is not clear that there is an interpretation in which the entailment holds. This would suggest that there may not be an activity interpretation for this predicate; this conclusion conflicts with the facts from the durative phrase. It may be the case that with aspectually variable predicates, in certain constructions, or in certain contexts, one of the two interpretations is preferred, blocking the other. If this is true, it is not clear for now why this might be. Nevertheless, reconsider some cross-linguistic facts. Specifically, recall that Russian imperfectives pattern with activities. Thus, even if the progressive-to-perfect entailment tests suggest that predicates headed by wash and read are accomplishments in English, predicates headed by the same verbs in the imperfective pattern with activities in Russian. This would be unexpected if lexical meaning determined es. Moreover, contrast predicates headed by eat and drink in English in (38) with predicates headed by comer “eat” and beber “drink” in Spanish in (39). (38) a. John ate an apple b. John drank a beer (39) a.

#for an hour/in an hour. #for an hour/in an hour.

Juan comió una paella durante una hora/en una hora. Juan ate a paella for and hour/en una hora ‘Juan ate a paella for an hour/en an hour.’

b. Juan bebió una cerveza durante una hora/en una hora. Juan drank a beer for an hour/in an hour. ‘Juan drank a beer for an hour/en an hour.’

Whereas predicates headed by eat and drink in English pattern with accomplishments, predicates headed by eat and drink in Spanish are aspectually variable between an activity interpretation and an accomplishment interpretation. If es were dependent on lexical meaning, why should the same verbs head predicates with different es? 3.1.3  〈 fe〉 on P It is not clear that lexical meaning can determine when an 〈 fe〉 feature will appear on Asp, or on big V. Here I discuss whether the lexical meaning of a P can

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

determine whether or not an 〈 fe〉 feature will appear on it. Consider the data in (40). (40) John carried the bag into the bedroom

for an hour.

The goal P introduces an 〈 fe〉 feature, and consequently the predicate is telic; the durative only elicits an iterative interpretation. Note also that the goal phrase expresses the final location of the direct object in motion in (40); it marks the end of a path. Marking the end of the path might be the source of lexical meaning that determines whether an 〈 fe〉 feature appears on a P. However, marking the end of a path of motion is not a necessary condition, as the data in (41) show. (41) John carried the bag from the bedroom

for an hour.

In (41) there is no goal phrase; although, there is a source phrase. The source phrase does not express the end of a path of motion, it expresses the beginning of a path of motion. Yet, the predicate is telic; the durative phrase only elicits an iterative interpretation of the predicate. Thus, a prepositional phrase need not express the end of a path in order to bear an 〈 fe〉 feature. Consider another property of the P present in both (40) and (41) that might be responsible for the presence of 〈 fe〉 : an on/with entailment. This on/with entailment exists between the direct object and the complement of the preposition. As a result of this entailment, the bag is interpreted as in the bedroom at the end of the path in (40) and in the bedroom at the beginning of the path in (41). This is potential lexical meaning that might determine the presence of a 〈 fe〉 feature on P. Let us explore this possibility. Spanish has reflexive non-argumental clitic pronouns illustrated in (42). (42) a.

Juan(se) comió una paella. Juan (himself) ate a paella ‘Juan ate a paella.’

b. Juan (se) lavó el coche. Juan (himself) washed the car ‘Juan washed his car.’

In the presence of the reflexive pronoun the predicate is telic (MacDonald 2004: 135; Nishida 1994: 428; Sanz 1999: 250; Zagona 1996: 475). This explains the incompatibility of the durative phrase, illustrated in (43).16

.  The durative phrase in Spanish does not seem to be able to elicit an iterative interpretation in (43b), patterning here with Russian. See chapter eight for a discussion of these facts in light of linguistic variation.



(43) a.

Chapter 6.  The autonomy of inner aspect 

Juan se comió una paella #durante una hora. Juan himself ate a paella for an hour ‘Juan ate a paella for an hour.’

b. Juan se lavó el coche #durante una hora. Juan himself washed the car for an hour ‘Juan washed the car for an hour.’

MacDonald (2004: 132–133) observes furthermore, that in the presence of the reflexive, there is an on/with entailment expressed that is not present without it. Consider the data in (44). (44) a.

Juan se abrochó la camisa. Juan himself buttoned the shirt ‘Juan buttoned his shirt.’

b. Juan abrochó la camisa.

In (44a), in the presence of the reflexive, the shirt is interpreted as on the subject during the buttoning event. It cannot be on a hanger, for example. This on/with entailment does not hold in (44b) in which there is no reflexive present. Consider the data in (45). (45) a.

Juan se lavó el coche. Juan himself washed the car. ‘Juan washed his car.’

b. Juan lavó el coche.

In (45a), the subject is interpreted as carrying out the washing of the car. He could not have dropped it off at a car wash to let someone else wash it, for example. This results from the on/with entailment elicited in the presence of the reflexive pronoun. This on/with entailment is not present in (45b) in which there is no reflexive pronoun. To account for these facts, MacDonald (2004: 132) proposes that these reflexive non-argumental clitic pronouns of Spanish are introduced as the complement of a null goal-like preposition.17 This is illustrated in (46).

.  MacDonald (2004) provides other arguments for analyzing these reflexives as merging as the complement of a null goal-like preposition that itself merges as a complement of the verb. He appeals to an inalienable possession restriction and their ability to prevent idiomatic interpretations as well.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect ...vP

(46)

v′

DP Juan

v

VP DP the car

V′ V wash

on/with & 〈fe〉





PP P ØGOAL

DP self

The null goal-like preposition forces the direct object to be interpreted on/ with the complement of the goal in the same way that overt goal phrases do in English. The reflexive is coindexed with the subject, and therefore, the direct object is interpreted as on/with the subject. Now consider Romanian non-argumental reflexive pronoun constructions in (47). (47) a.

Eu (mi-)am spălat maşina timp de zece minute. I (myself-)have washed car-the time of ten minutes ‘I washed my/the car for ten minutes.’

b. Eu (mi-)am spălat maşina I (myself-)have washed car-the ‘I washed my/the car.’

The presence of the reflexive does not result in a telic interpretation of the predicate; therefore, the durative phrase is compatible, as illustrated in (47a). Additionally, observe that when the reflexive pronoun is present, the subject does not have to be carrying out the washing of the car, as in (47b); it could have been dropped off at the car wash for someone else to wash. The Romanian reflexive construction does not elicit an on/with entailment and it does not elicit a telic interpretation of the predicate. To account for these Romanian reflexive non-argumental facts, MacDonald (2006a: 170), argues that the Romanian reflexive non-argumental clitic pronoun is the complement of a null directional-like preposition that merges as the complement of the verb. This is illustrated in (48).18 .  MacDonald (2006a) draws a parallel between the aspectual and structural properties of directional prepositions (e.g., towards) and the Romanian reflexive, relying on facts from do so constructions and idiom prevention to motivate this structure.



Chapter 6.  The autonomy of inner aspect  ...vP

(48)

v′

DP I

v

VP DP the car

V′ V wash

no on/with & no 〈fe〉



PP P ØDIR

DP self



To recap the patterns just outlined, we have seen that English goal prepositions and Spanish non-argumental reflexive pronoun constructions pattern the same; they both elicit a telic interpretation of the predicate and express an on/with entailment. On the other hand, Romanian non-argumental reflexive constructions do not elicit a telic interpretation of the predicate, and do not express an on/with entailment. These patterns suggest that there is some connection between an on/with entailment and the presence of 〈 fe〉 on P. This conclusion is not fully warranted, however, as the data from French in (49) and (50) suggest. (49) a.

Jean s’est boutonné la chemise. Jean himself-is buttoned the shirt ‘Jean buttoned his shirt.’

b. Jean a boutonné la chemise. Jean has buttoned the shirt ‘Jean buttoned his shirt.’ (50) Jean s’est/a lavé la voiture pendant une heure. Jean himself-is/has washed the car for an hour ‘Jean washed his car for an hour.’

In (49a) there is a reflexive pronoun present and there is an on/with entailment. The shirt must be on the subject at the time of the buttoning event. When there is no reflexive pronoun present, as in (49b), there is no on/with entailment. Nevertheless, (50) shows that the presence of the reflexive pronoun does not result in a telic interpretation of the predicate, as the durative phrase is compatible.19

.  There is some variation with respect to the compatibility of the durative.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

Assuming an analysis for these non-argumental reflexive pronoun constructions in French in which the reflexive is introduced as the complement of a null preposition, we can conclude that this null preposition can express an on/with entailment, but does not introduce an 〈 fe〉 feature.20 Thus it is not clear that the on/with entailment determines the presence of the 〈 fe〉 feature.21 3.2  Event structure is independent of thematic relations The thematic relations expressed by a predicate and the aspectual interpretation of the predicate seem also to be independent of each other. Consider the data in (51) and (52). (51) a. The boy spotted the plane   for an hour. b. The boy enjoyed the music   for an hour. (52) a. The brute struck the beast (with a stick)   for ten minutes. b. The brute beat the beast (with a stick)   for ten minutes.

In (51) there are two sentences containing transitive verbs which have an experiencer subject and a theme/stimulus direct object. Yet, (51a) is an achievement, and (51b) is an activity. Evidence comes from the interpretation of the durative phrase. In (51a), the durative phrase elicits an sie interpretation, and in (51b) there is a single event interpretation. Thematically these sentences are the same; aspectually they differ. In (52) there are two sentences with an agentive subject and a patient/ theme direct object. However, (52a) is an achievement and (52b) is an activity. Evidence comes from the sie interpretation in the presence of the durative phrase in (52a), and the single event interpretation in (52b). Thematically these sentences are the same; aspectually they differ. Observe the three sentences in (53) below. The subject of each is an agent, and the direct object of each is a theme/patient. (53) a. The man drank a glass of wine #for ten minutes. b. The man slammed a glass of wine #for ten minutes. c. The man sipped a glass of wine for ten minutes.22

.  See Snyder (1995) and Beck & Snyder (2001) for a host of languages whose goal prepositions do not elicit a telic interpretation of the predicate (i.e., are not associated with an 〈 fe〉 feature in the system developed here), yet are goal prepositions. Considering the conclusions drawn above this is not unexpected. .  Another possibility is that the presence of the 〈 fe〉 feature on P is determined by whether there is a terminal coincidence relation or a central coincidence relation (Hale & Keyser 2002). It is not clear that this holds. See chapter four for relevant facts and discussion. It may also be worth investigating the role that scalar properties may play. See, for example, Beavers (2008). .  Some speakers may prefer John sipped on a glass of wine.



Chapter 6.  The autonomy of inner aspect 

In (53a) and (53b) the durative phrase is incompatible, while in (53c) it is compatible. (53a) and (53b) describe events interpreted as telic, and given the nature of the type of action described by the predicate, the durative phrase is incompatible. (53c) describes an atelic event, and consequently, the durative phrase is compatible. More specifically, (53a) is an accomplishment, (53b) is an achievement, and (53c) is an activity. Observe the interpretations of these sentences in the stop-control construction in (54). (54) a. The man stopped drinking the glass of wine. b. The man stopped slamming the glass of wine. c. The man stopped sipping the glass of wine.

(54a) and (54c) elicit a single event interpretation because they are accomplishment and activity predicates respectively. (54b), on the other hand, only allows an odd iterative interpretation due to the achievement status of the predicate. Again, these are predicates that have the same thematic relations, but have different aspectual interpretations. Observe a final set of cases in (55) to (59). These are aspectually variable verbs. (55) a. Shirley washed the car b. Shirley washed the car

in an hour. for an hour.

(56) a. The cook warmed the meat b. The cook warmed the meat

in ten minutes. for ten minutes.

(57) a. Dudley read the book b. Dudley read the book

in an hour. for an hour.

(58) a. Bill sprayed the wall with paint b. Bill sprayed the wall with paint

in an hour.23 for an hour.

(59) a. Bill loaded the truck with dirt b. Bill loaded the truck with dirt

in an hour. for an hour.

Since the verbs and the arguments are the same in each case, the thematic relations are the same. Yet, since they are aspectually variable predicates, their es properties are different. es is not dependent on thematic relations. This becomes even clearer when we abstract the aspectual predicate types away from all of the examples we have seen. Taking the activity predicates alone, we see that there is no single set of thematic relations across all of them; there is an experiencer and theme/stimulus in (51b) and (57b), agent and theme/patient in (52b), (53c) and (55b), an agent/ causer and theme/patient in (56b), and an agent and location in (58b) and (59b).

.  The sentences in (58) and (59) are from Jackendoff (1996: 309).

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

Taking the achievement predicates alone, there is an experiencer and theme/ stimulus in (51a), agent and theme/patient in (52a) and (53b), and an agent/causer and theme/patient in (56a). Taking the accomplishment predicates alone, there is an agent and theme/patient in (53a) and (55a), an experiencer and theme/stimulus in (57a), and an agent and location in (58a) and (59a). es is independent of thematic relations. There are alternative accounts in which thematic roles are reanalyzed as event roles. See, for example, Borer (2005), Ramchand (2003). 3.2.1  The object-to-event mapping and proto-patients Recall from the system of aspect developed in chapter two that there is only a single argument that participates in the ote mapping: the np closest to Asp. Thus, perhaps a more focused discussion of the relationship between the thematic relations expressed by a predicate and its aspectual interpretation should be restricted to the thematic role assigned to the np participating in the ote mapping. Perhaps then a clearer relationship between thematic role and aspect will surface. It is not clear that this is the case, even if we assume a broad enough thematic role such as proto-patient (Dowty 1991).24 That is, it is not clear that there is a consistent thematic role that the np participating in the ote mapping bears, nor is it clear that the ability to participate in the ote mapping is dependent on a particular thematic role. Consider the data in (60). (60) a. John carried the bag into the bedroom   for an hour. b. John carried sand into the bedroom   for an hour.

Dowty (1991: 588) claims that “An Incremental Theme … is an np that can determine the aspect of a sentence.” Given this claim a natural conclusion for the np internal arguments in (60) (e.g., the bag/sand) is that they are incremental themes, since they determine the aspect of the sentence, evidenced by the interpretation of the durative phrase. Interestingly, Dowty (1991: 569) claims that the incremental theme of the sentences like those in (60) is an abstract path; sand and the bag are referred to as holistic themes. Consider now the datum in (61). (61) John carried the bag/sand   for an hour.

Without the presence of the goal phrase, the internal arguments in (61) no longer affect the telicity of the predicate. Nevertheless, it is not clear that the thematic role assigned to the np internal arguments in (61) is different from the np internal arguments in (60). They seem to have the same role in each case, yet their ability .  Dowty (1991) himself does not claim that any np that is a proto-patient can participate in the ote mapping, but only an incremental theme. An np that is an incremental theme has proto-patient properties. Thus, proto-patienthood is a broader thematic characterization of an np than incremental themehood.



Chapter 6.  The autonomy of inner aspect 

to affect the telicity of the predicate changes.25 If the ability to participate in the ote mapping were dependent on a particular thematic role, we would expect the internal arguments in (60) and (61) to behave the same; nevertheless, they do not. Consider another datum in (62). (62) Bill loaded a truck with livestock

in an hour.

In (62) there is a [+q]np object and the time span adverbial can express the amount of time before the event ends, i.e., before the truck was fully loaded with livestock. The np a truck participates in the ote mapping; its best thematic characterization is that of a location or a recipient. Consider the data in (63). (63) a. The animal found the body of water b. Wildlife found the body of water

#for an hour. for an hour.

In (63a) with a [+q]np subject, the durative phrase is odd. Only on a pragmatically odd reading in which the animal found and lost the body of water is there an interpretation of the durative phrase (thus the #). In contrast, in (63b) with a [–q]np subject, the durative phrase improves in compatibility and results in a single event interpretation of the predicate. In chapter seven, section 3 I analyze the subjects of these predicates as derived from a position below Asp. The subjects of these predicates participate in the ote mapping and they are interpreted as experiencers. Given the range of thematic roles discussed, a natural conclusion is that the thematic role assigned to an np is independent of its ability to participate in the ote mapping. As concluded in chapter two, what is crucial for an np to participate in the ote mapping is its syntactic position, i.e., it’s proximity to Asp. A closer look at the spray-load alternation in (64) exemplifies this. (64) a. John loaded a tractor with hay b. John loaded a bail of hay onto farm equipment

in an hour. in an hour.

Both of the sentences in (64) are telic. Only the np internal argument (closest to Asp) can enter into the ote mapping. Dowty (1991: 588) notes that only the surface direct object in these cases can participate in the ote mapping. It is not clear why he needs to appeal to syntax here if as he claims “…not all incremental themes are direct objects,…subjects, pairs of PPs, and sometimes verbs alone can “encode” incremental themehood.” (Dowty 1991: 589) Since either of the nps in the sprayload alternation can participate in the ote mapping, it is not immediately clear why only as the surface direct object they can do so, if the only requirement is that

.  In the present system the lack of the ote mapping affect in (61) is expected because there is no 〈 fe〉 feature present. Since there is no 〈 fe〉 feature present the predicate will be atelic regardless of how Asp is valued. See the discussion in chapter three, section 3.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

an argument be an incremental theme. These facts suggest strongly that the important property for an np to enter into the ote mapping is not its thematic role, but its syntactic position in the structure, i.e., its proximity to Asp.

4.  Concluding remarks Asp is a functional projection that, among other things, syntactically instantiates the ote mapping via Agree with an np. This relation is independent of case; case is a syntactic relation with a distinct syntactic head. Event features are interpretable features that encode es. Event features are independent of the heads (and projections) on which they appear. Moreover, event features are not dependent on thematic relations or lexical meaning. In these respects, inner aspect is an autonomous system within natural language.

chapter 7

A consideration of other aspectual facts In this chapter I show how the approach to the syntax of aspect proposed in chapters two to three can be extended to cover a wider range of aspectual data than what has been discussed so far. In section 1, I discuss resultative constructions. Although telicity and resultativity are distinct notions, I discuss data in which a result phrase has an aspectual affect on the predicate and show how the system of aspect developed here can account for these facts. Aspectually, they behave like ppaccomplishments. In section 2, I offer a way to handle English conatives. I propose that the preposition, indicative of a conative construction, merges directly onto Asp and values it [–q]; two other facts about English conatives fall out directly from this. In section 3, I discuss data that at first sight seem to show that external arguments affect the aspectual interpretation of the predicate, contrary to conclusions from chapter two. Ultimately, I argue that they do not. I refer to these predicates as psych-achievements. In section 4, I briefly draw attention to data that suggest that in some cases there may be a property other than the [±q] feature of an np that can affect the telicity of a predicate. I suggest that pragmatics may be playing a role here.

1.  Resultatives We will see here that although it is often the case that the addition of a result phrase corresponds to a change in the aspectual interpretation of a predicate, in particular, by turning an atelic predicate into a telic predicate, telicity and resultativity are independent of each other. That is, often a telic interpretation is present without a result phrase, and as we will see, resultativity can hold in cases when the predicate is atelic. I discuss four constructions that have at some time been analyzed as resultative-like: prepositional phrase resultatives (pp resultatives), adjectival phrase resultatives (ap resultatives), way constructions, and fake reflexive constructions. What we will see for each of these predicates is that they show the same aspectual patterns that pp-accomplishments show. It is not my intention to do full justice to the rich subject area of resultatives, but only to discuss the relevance of these data to the aspectual interpretation of the predicate, and in

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

particular discuss how the present system of aspect can account for the aspectual effects attested in resultative constructions.1 1.1  The independence of resultivity and telicity Note that a result phrase can be present in a construction without contributing to the aspectual interpretation of the predicate. For, in some cases, the predicate is telic independently of the presence of the result phrase. In (1), I give some typical examples of resultatives. (1) a. The pond froze solid b. The vase broke into pieces

#for an hour. #for an hour.

Observe that they are incompatible with the durative phrase. More interestingly, observe that the durative phrase is still incompatible although the result phrase is no longer present, shown in (2).2 (2) a. The pond froze b. The vase broke

#for an hour. #for an hour.

These data suggest that the telicity of these predicates does not necessarily depend on the presence of the result phrase. That is, to be a result phrase, you do not have to induce telicity (see also Goldberg & Jackendoff 2004: 542). Consider the following resultatives with a [–q]np direct object. (3) a. Mary wiped glass clean (for an hour). b. Bill hammered metal flat (for hours).

The predicates are atelic, due to the direct object. Nevertheless, they are still resultatives. Therefore, it is not a requirement of a result phrase to induce telicity. Resultativity is independent of telicity. 1.2  pp and ap resultatives Consider two major types of resultatives: ap resultatives and pp resultatives. pp resultatives are formed by the addition of a prepositional phrase which tends to

.  See, for example, Beavers (2008), Hoekstra (1988), Simpson (1983), Carrier & Randall (1992) and Goldberg & Jackendoff (2004) for a more detailed look at the properties of resultatives. .  In (2a) the durative is compatible on the result state reading in which the pond was frozen for an hour, but this is not relevant to the discussion.



Chapter 7.  A consideration of other aspectual facts 

indicate the final location of some object in motion. Typical pp resultatives are illustrated in (3).3 (3) a. Fred tracked the leak to its source. b. Bill followed the road into the forest. c. Bill carried the ball out of the room.

ap resultatives are formed by the addition of an adjective which typically describes the state in which the direct object comes to be in as a result of the action expressed by the verb. Typical ap resultatives are illustrated in (4). (4) a. John wiped the table clean. b. Bill hammered the metal flat. c. They painted the barn yellow.

Focusing first on pp resultatives, observe that only a pragmatically odd iterative interpretation is available in the presence of a durative, as illustrated in (5). (5) a. Fred tracked the leak to its source b. Bill followed the road into the forest c. Jack carried the ball out of the room

#for an hour. #for an hour.4 #for an hour.

When the result phrase is not present, the predicate is atelic, as illustrated in (6). (6) a. Fred tracked the leak b. Bill followed the road c. Bill carried the ball

for an hour. for an hour. for an hour.

Also, when there is a [–q]np internal argument, an atelic interpretation of the resultative results, as shown in (7). (7) a. Fred tracked wildlife to the carcass b. Bill followed wildlife into the forest c. Jack carried sand out of the room

for an hour. for an hour. for an hour.

These pp resultatives behave just like the pp-accomplishments discussed in chapter two. Consequently, I treat them in exactly the same way as pp-accomplishments. I assume that the pp in these constructions introduces an 〈 fe〉 feature into the syntax, as depicted in the structure in (8).

.  The examples (3a) and (3b) are from Goldberg & Jackendoff (2004: 537). .  There is an interpretation in which into the forest modifies the road, but does not indicate that Bill ends up in the forest. This interpretation is not relevant.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect ...vP

(8)

v′

DP Fred

v

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

VP DP the leak





V′ V track

PP〈fe〉 P 〈fe〉 to

DP its source

This straightforwardly explains the parallel aspectual behavior between pp-accomplishments and pp resultatives. These pp resultatives are pp-accomplishments. Consider the aspectual properties of ap resultatives. ap resultatives are incompatible with durative phrases on a single event interpretation, as illustrated in (9). (9) a. John wiped the table clean b. Bill hammered the metal flat c. They painted the barn yellow

#for an hour. #for an hour. #for an hour.

When the result phrase is not present, an atelic predicates results, as illustrated in (10). (10) a. John wiped the table b. Bill hammered the metal c. They painted the barn

for an hour. for an hour. for an hour.

Also, when there is a [–q]np internal argument, an atelic interpretation of the resultative results, as shown in (11). (11) a. John wiped glass clean b. Bill hammered metal flat c. They painted siding yellow

for an hour. for an hour. for an hour.

These resultatives pattern aspectually in the same way as pp resultatives, suggesting that the result phrase introduces an 〈 fe〉 feature into the structure. In fact,



Chapter 7.  A consideration of other aspectual facts 

I assume that there is a null XP that houses the adjective and which introduces an 〈 fe〉 into the syntax, resulting in the structure in (12). ...vP

(12)

v′

DP John

v

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

VP DP the table

V′ V wipe

XP〈fe〉 X 〈fe〉





AP clean

ap resultatives and pp resultatives have the same syntactic aspectual structure as pp-accomplishments. Therefore, we expect that they pattern with pp-accomplishments with respect to the interpretation of almost. Specifically, we expect both a counterfactual and incompletive interpretation with pp and ap resultatives. This is shown to be the case in (13) and (14) respectively. (13) a. Fred almost tracked the leak to its source. b. Bill almost followed the road into the forest. (14) a. John almost wiped the table clean. b. Bill almost hammered the metal flat.

Likewise, as expected, both pp resultatives and ap resultatives elicit two interpretations in the it takes x-time construction. This is shown in (15) and (16) for pp resultatives and ap resultatives respectively. (15) a. It took Fred 10 minutes to track the leak to its source. b. It took Bill 10 minutes to follow the road into the forest. (16) a. It took John 10 minutes to wipe the table clean. b. It took Bill 10 minutes to hammer the metal flat.

Aspectually, pp and ap resultatives are the same as pp-accomplishments.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

1.3  Way and fake reflexives In this section I discuss way constructions, as in (17), and fake reflexive constructions, as in (18).5 (17) a. John insulted his way across the room. b. Mary embraced her way through the reunion crowd. (18) a. Bill cried himself to sleep. b. I laughed myself sick.

Observe that when the result phrase is present in the way construction, the durative phrase elicits only an iterative interpretation, as shown in (19).6 (19) a. John insulted his way across the room b. Mary embraced her way through the reunion crowd

for an hour. for an hour.

The predicates in (19) are telic. When the result phrase is not present, an atelic interpretation results, as illustrated in (20). (20) a. John insulted Mary b. Mary embraced John

for an hour. for an hour.

This suggests that the result phrase introduces an 〈 fe〉 feature. Furthermore, observe that the presence of his way without the result phrase is ungrammatical, as noted in (21), suggesting that his way is introduced by the result phrase itself. (21) a. *John insulted his way. b. *Mary embraced her way.

In fact, I assume that his way is the subject of a small clause that takes the prepositional phrase as its complement.7 Furthermore, I assume that the 〈 fe〉 feature is introduced by the P, resulting in an aspectual syntactic structure similar to pp-accomplishments. This is shown in (22).

.  Examples in (17) taken from Tenny (1994: 40). .  Note that in (19b) through is ambiguous between a goal reading of the prepositional phrase and a location reading of it. Only on the goal reading do we find the telic patterns discussed below. It shows the same patterns as the ambiguous goal-location prepositions discussed in chapter two, section 3. .  See also Ritter & Rosen (1998: 154 n.12) and Hoekstra (1988) for similar proposals.



Chapter 7.  A consideration of other aspectual facts  ...vP

(22)

v′

DP Bill

v

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

VP V insult

SC DP his way





PP〈fe〉 P 〈fe〉

DP across the room

This structure predicts that way constructions should pattern with ppaccomplishments aspectually. This seems to be the case. Observe that way constructions in the stop-control construction allow for a single event interpretation, as shown in (23), suggesting that they are accomplishments. (23) a. John stopped insulting his way across the room. b. Mary stopped embracing her way through the reunion crowd.

Moreover, almost is ambiguous between a counterfactual and incompletive interpretation, as indicated in (24). (24) a. John almost insulted his way across the room. b. Mary almost embraced her way through the reunion crowd.

The fake reflexive construction patterns the same as the way construction. The predicates are telic, evidenced by the incompatibility of the durative phrase, as indicated in (25), (25) a. Bill cried himself to sleep b. I laughed myself sick c. Darrell danced himself into a frenzy

#for an hour. #for an hour. #for an hour.

When the result phrase is not present, the predicate is atelic, as illustrated in (26). (26) a. Bill cried b. I laughed c. Darrell danced

for an hour. for an hour. for an hour.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

Furthermore, the reflexive is not licensed if the result phrase is not present, as noted in (27). (27) a. *Bill cried himself. b. *I laughed myself. c. *Darrell danced himself.

Given this similar pattern of behavior, I assume that fake reflexive constructions have the same underlying structure as way constructions, illustrated in (28). ...vP

(28)

v′

DP Darrel

v

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

VP V dance

SC DP himself





PP〈fe〉 P 〈fe〉 into

DP a frenzy

This structure predicts that fake reflexives should behave like pp-accomplishments as well. Observe that in the stop-control construction in (29), a single event interpretation is available. (29) a. Bill stopped crying himself to sleep. b. I stopped laughing myself sick. c. Darrell stopped dancing himself into a frenzy.

Furthermore, observe that almost elicits both a counterfactual and incompletive interpretation, as illustrated in (30), although the incompletive interpretation is most salient. (30) a. Bill almost cried himself to sleep. b. I almost laughed myself sick. c. Darrel almost danced himself into a frenzy.



Chapter 7.  A consideration of other aspectual facts 

Additionally, in the it takes x-time construction, the start-time and the end-time interpretations are both available as well, as illustrated in (31), the latter being more salient. (31) a. It took Bill ten minutes to cry himself to sleep. b. It took me ten minutes to laugh myself sick. c. It took Darrell ten minutes to dance himself into a frenzy.

Thus, we can account for the aspectual interpretation of resultatives very straightforwardly because they have the same aspectual syntactic structure as ppaccomplishments.

2.  Conatives In this section I offer a way to account for the so-called conative alternation. I propose that the conative preposition of English merges directly onto Asp valuing it [–q], resulting in an atelic interpretation of the predicate. Consider the conative alternation in (32) and (33). (32) a. John slashed the painting b. John ate the pizza c. John drank a mug of beer

#for an hour. #for an hour. #for an hour.

In (32) the predicates are telic as evidenced by the incompatibility of the durative phrase. Observe in (33) that when a preposition is introduced before the internal argument, the durative phrase becomes compatible. This is the conative construction. (33) a. John slashed at the painting b. John ate at the pizza c. John drank from a mug of beer

for an hour. for an hour. for an hour.8

The conative alternation derives an atelic interpretation of a predicate, and always in the presence of a preposition. I propose that the preposition in conatives merges directly onto the head of Asp and values it [–q]. The structure of a conative is given in (34).

.  Typically the preposition assumed to be associated with a conative alternation in English is at (Levin 1993: 42). However, from here seems to elicit the same aspectual effects and shows the same patterns as at.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect ...vP

(34)

v′

DP John

v

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉 at





VP〈fe〉 V 〈fe〉 ate

DP the pizza

Because Asp is valued [–q] the domain of aspectual interpretation will not extend, and the event feature on big V will not be interpreted as contributing subevent structure; an atelic interpretation will result. There are two positive outcomes from this proposal. First, note that it offers an explanation for why the word order between the object and the preposition cannot vary, as illustrated in (35), which is quite generally available for particles, as shown in (36). (35) a. *John slashed the painting at. b. *John ate the pizza at. c. *John drank a mug of beer from. (36) a. John ate the pizza up/up the pizza. b. John drank a mug of beer up/up a mug of beer.

The word order cannot vary because of the fixed hierarchical order of Asp in the verb phrase. Second, note that if the conative preposition merges directly on Asp, there is no effect on the assignment of accusative case to the internal argument. The internal argument bears accusative case independently of the presence of the conative preposition. This is illustrated by the presence of the accusative pronoun in the conative construction in (37). (37) a. The madman slashed (at) him. b. The cannibal ate (at) him.

Moreover, observe that this case is most likely structural, as assumed here, since when a passive is formed on the conative, nominative appears on the derived subject, as shown in (38). (38) a. He was slashed at. b. He was eaten at.



Chapter 7.  A consideration of other aspectual facts 

3.  Psych-achievements Recall that it was concluded in chapter three, that only internal arguments (i.e., the np closest to Asp) can participate in the ote mapping. External arguments cannot. Now, consider an example in (39) that has been put forward elsewhere as evidence that external arguments can affect the aspectual interpretation of the predicate.9 (39) Tourists discovered that quaint little village for years.

There is a bp subject that seems to be licensing an sse interpretation. This is a psych-achievement. More examples of psych-achievements are given below in (40).10 (40)

a. b. c. d.

John spotted a plane. Jane detected a sound. Julie found a nugget of gold. Jasper discovered a tropical island.

I argue here that these seemingly problematic data can be explained within the system of aspect laid out in chapter two and in fact ultimately lend support to the conclusion that nps above AspP cannot affect the aspectual interpretation of the predicate. Let us examine the properties of these psych-achievements. A psych-achievement is an achievement predicate that has an experiencer subject. Evidence that the subject is non-agentive comes from the incompatibility of adverbs that typically require the presence of an agent, illustrated in (41). (41)

a. b. c. d.

John (*deliberately/*intentionally) spotted a plane. Jane (*deliberately/*intentionally) detected a sound. Julie (*deliberately/*intentionally) found a nugget if gold. Jasper (*deliberately/*intentionally) discovered a tropical island.

Observe also that purpose clauses are ungrammatical with these psych-achievements, illustrated in (42), again suggesting that the subject is non-agentive. (42)

a. b. c. d.

John spotted a plane Jane detected a sound Julie found a nugget of gold Jasper discovered an island

*in order to warn his captain. *in order to record it. *in order to be rich. *in order to escape the feds.

.  Example taken from Dowty (1979: 63). .  Another example of a psych-achievement may be overhear.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

Note that these verbs fall into the category of sight verbs, which Levin (1993: 186–187) notes have a “perceiver” subject.11 The subjects of psych-achievements are experiencer subjects. Now observe that psych-achievements, in the presence of a durative phrase, result in an sie interpretation, as illustrated in (43). (43) a. John spotted the plane b. Jane detected the sound

for an hour. for an hour.

This indicates that they describe events interpreted as telic.12 Consider the interpretation of these predicates in (44) with almost present. (44)

a. b. c. d.

John almost spotted a plane. Jane almost detected a sound. Julie almost found a piece of gold. Jasper almost discovered a tropical island.

Only a counterfactual interpretation is available. In (44a) the only interpretation available is that John did not spot a plane; no spotting event took place. In (44b), the only interpretation is that Jane did not detect a sound at all; no sound detecting event took place. The same goes for (44c) and (44d). One final piece of evidence for the achievement status of these predicates comes from the stop-control construction in (45). (45)

a. b. c. d.

John stopped spotting the plane. Jane stopped detecting the sound. Julie stopped finding the piece of gold (at the beach). #Jasper stopped discovering the tropical island.

We expect that achievements only elicit an iterative interpretation. This is what we find. The only interpretation of (45a) is that John spotted the plane over and over, and this iterative spotting stopped. The only interpretation of (45b) is that Jane detected the sound over and over, and this iterative detecting stopped. Likewise, in (45c) only an iterative interpretation is allowed. (45d), on the other hand, is

.  I am not claiming that all sight verbs are achievements, but that psych-achievements form a subgroup of sight verbs. Note that the fact that there are sight verbs that are not achievements constitutes more evidence that the es of a predicate is independent of its lexical meaning. See chapter six, section 3.1 for more discussion. .  Note that both discover and find are a bit odd on an iterative interpretation. Pragmatically it is odd to find something over and over, unless of course there is a suitable context in which the object in question is continually lost. It is even more pragmatically odd to discover something over and over. However, this is not to say that there are no contexts. I leave it up to the reader to find them.



Chapter 7.  A consideration of other aspectual facts 

odd simply because it is odd to repeatedly discover the same tropical island. If a single event interpretation were available, the sentence would not be odd. Now let us consider the behavior of bps and mns with these psych-achievements in more detail in (46) and (47). In the presence of a bp direct object in (46) the durative phrase elicits an sse interpretation of the predicate. (46)

a. b. c. d.

John spotted planes Jane detected sounds Julie found pieces of gold Jasper discovered tropical islands

for an hour. for an hour. for an hour. for a week.

Now consider the aspectual interpretation of a mn direct object in (47). (47)

a. b. c. d.

John spotted rain Jane detected noise Julie found gold Jasper discovered wildlife

#for an hour. #for an hour. #for an hour.13 #for a week.14

The presence of a mn direct object does not elicit an atelic interpretation. The only interpretation available is an sie interpretation, which in many of the examples is a bit odd, thus the #. Nevertheless, the only possible interpretation of (47a) is that John repeatedly spotted rain. The only interpretation of (47b) is that Jane repeatedly detected noise. The same interpretations go for (47c) and (47d), although as noted above the iterative interpretation of these predicates in particular is odd due to the lexical semantics of the verbs themselves. Observe another interesting fact about these psych-achievement predicates. A bp subject elicits an sse interpretation, as illustrated in (48). (48)

a. b. c. d.

Boys spotted the plane Girls detected the sound Animals found the body of water Goats discovered the bucket of feed

for an hour (before any girl did). for an hour (before any boy did). for an hour. for an hour.

.  Borer (2005: 331) takes data of this sort as evidence that a predicate can be interpreted as telic regardless of the nature of the internal argument. In light of the analysis of these data that I provide, they cannot be taken as evidence for that conclusion. .  Observe that Dowty (1979: 63) finds the following parallel sentence to be grammatical: John discovered crabgrass in his yard for six weeks. I agree that this sentence is not ungrammatical. However, it seems that this is due to the presence of the locative phrase. For observe that the compatibility of the durative phrase worsens when the locative is removed: John discovered crabgrass #for six weeks. Also observe that the sentence in (47d) improves with the durative when a locative expression is added: Jasper discovered wildlife in his backyard for a week. These data suggests that the locative is responsible for the improvement of the durative phrase, not the mass term.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

In (48a) there does seem to be an interpretation in which a boy spotted the plane, and another boy spotted the plane and so on for an hour. Likewise in (48b), there seems to be an interpretation in which there is a sequence of girls detecting the sound one after another for an hour. More telling is the fact that in (48c) and (48d), the presence of the durative phrase is improved in the presence of a bp subject. This strongly suggests that the bp has an aspectual affect on the predicate, for recall that with these verbs, a simple sie interpretation is odd due to their lexical semantics. On the sse interpretation of (48c) one animal followed by another found the body of water for an hour, and on the sse interpretation of (48d) one goat followed by another discovered the bucket of feed for an hour. Observe another interesting fact about these psych-achievements. mn subjects result in an atelic interpretation of the predicate, as illustrated in (49). (49)

a. b. c. d.

Surveillance equipment spotted the thief Audio equipment detected the sound Wildlife found the body of water Livestock discovered the bucket of feed

for an hour. for an hour. for an hour. for an hour.

Note that there is still a salient partitioned event interpretation even in the presence of the mn subject. First, this may result from the achievement status of the predicate, for note that other achievement predicates that contain a mn also result in a partitioned interpretation of the event, although they are atelic. This is illustrated in (50).15 (50) a. John broke stereo equipment b. John cut rope

for an hour. for an hour.

Additionally, I draw attention to the verbs find and discover which are quite infelicitous on an iterative interpretation of the predicate. Note that in (49c) and (49d) the durative phrase improves in compatibility in the presence of a mn subject. This suggests that the mn subject is affecting the aspectual interpretation of the predicate and that no iterative interpretation results; that is, the mn subject elicits a single event interpretation of the predicate. We have just seen that mn subjects elicit an atelic interpretation of the predicate, while mn direct objects do not. Both bp subjects and bp direct objects elicit

.  The salient partitioned interpretation of the action expressed by the predicate seems also to be available for (almost) any verb that takes an mn internal argument: (i) John broke glass for an hour. (ii) John drank beer for an hour. (iii) John carried sand onto the porch for an hour. This may simply be a result of pragmatic influence; for in the real world can an action be carried out continuously without stopping and restarting? It is uncommon. But it does not mean that the stopping and restarting is encoded linguistically.



Chapter 7.  A consideration of other aspectual facts 

an sse interpretation of the predicate. This pattern is reminiscent of the aspectual distribution of bps and mns in pp-accomplishment predicates. mn internal arguments elicit an atelic interpretation of the predicate while mn complements of the goal preposition do not. Both bp internal arguments and bp complements of the goal preposition elicit an sse interpretation of the predicate. Essentially, the subjects of psych-achievements pattern with the internal arguments of ppaccomplishments, and direct objects of psych-achievements with the complements of goal Ps of pp-accomplishments. These patterns of interpretation elicited by mns and bps in psych-achievements fall into place if we posit the aspectual syntactic structure for psych-achievements in (51a); compare it to the relevant portion of the aspectual syntactic structure of pp-accomplishments in (51b).16 (51)

a.

... AspP

Asp

b. VP

DP John

Asp

DP a plane





VP DP

V′ V spot

... AspP

V′

the bag V carry

PP P into

DP the bedroom

Aspectually, subjects of psych-achievements pattern with subjects of unaccusatives and passives, i.e., subjects derived from a position below AspP. Since agents are typically found in Spec, vP, it follows that experiencers are in a position in the verb phrase lower than agentive subjects. This is a positive consequence as it often assumed that experiencers are derived from a lower structural position than agents (see, for example, Hale & Keyser 1993: 65).17

.  I have ignored the position of 〈ie〉 and 〈 fe〉, as they are not immediately relevant to the discussion. As the psych-achievement is an achievement, both 〈ie〉 and 〈 fe〉 are on Asp in the expected configuration; see chapter three and four for more details. In the pp-accomplishment, 〈ie〉 is introduced on Asp, and 〈 fe〉 is introduced on the goal preposition; see chapter three for motivation for the position of these event features. .  Moreover note that Travis (2000: 178–181) argues for a lower structural position of the subjects of these achievement predicates in Malagasy and Tagalog. She provides arguments from morphology and syntax that the subjects of verbs corresponding to find, perceive, see, notice, among others, originate in a position structurally lower than volitional agents.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

Given these range of facts, and the conclusions from them, it cannot be concluded that these data are counterexamples to the syntactic generalization that nps above AspP cannot affect the telicity of a predicate. To the contrary, they can be taken to support this syntactic generalization.

4.  Another aspectual property of nps In this section I discuss some data that strongly suggest that there is a property other than the [±q] feature of an internal argument that affects the aspectual interpretation of a predicate. Consider the sentences in (52). (52) a. Sal smoked a cigar b. Wendy watched a movie

for an hour/in an hour. for an hour/in an hour.

These data behave like the aspectually variable predicates discussed in chapter six; both the durative and the time span adverbial are compatible under the relevant interpretations. Considering the general account of this class of aspectually variable predicates, we can conclude that these verbs optionally introduce an 〈 fe〉 feature (on big V) in the syntax. Consider now these verbs with different internal arguments in (53). (53) a. Sal smoked a pipe b. Wendy watched a bird

for an hour/#in an hour. for an hour/#in an hour.

The time span adverbial can no longer express the amount of time that passes before the events end. This suggests that there is a forced atelic interpretation of the predicate with these internal arguments. It is interesting that the [+q]np internal argument induces an atelic interpretation. This strongly suggests that there is some other property relevant to determining the aspectual choice of these verbs. Intuitively, we can understand these data in the following way. When one smokes a pipe, they do not progress through the pipe in the same way that they do through a cigar. Arguably for this reason no accomplishment interpretation is available. The same goes for watching birds; there is no progression through the extent of the bird such that a bird can be watched in an hour. On the other hand, when watching a movie, there is a progression through it such that an accomplishment interpretation is available. If this is the correct way to understand these facts, in harmony with the present approach to the syntax of aspect it must be claimed that when a bird is the internal argument of watch, there must not be an 〈 fe〉 on big V,



Chapter 7.  A consideration of other aspectual facts 

and when a pipe is the internal argument of smoke, there must not be an 〈 fe〉 on big V. Unfortunately, this is little more than an ad hoc description of the facts, which begs for a real explanation. I simply suggest here that pragmatics may be playing a role in the choice of aspectual structure. Given the way the real world is, there are some tendencies such that one aspectual structure is preferred over others.

chapter 8

The syntactic nature of inner aspect and some speculative remarks In this final chapter I first go through the system of inner aspect developed in this book and discuss what it tells us about the syntactic nature of inner aspect. I then make some speculative remarks. The chapter is organized into three sections: In section 1, I summarize the mechanisms of the present system of inner aspect and some of its main consequences. In section 2, I note the conclusions that can be drawn about the syntactic nature of inner aspect based on the present study. In section 3, I make some speculative remarks. Specifically, in 3.1 I entertain the possibility that the properties surrounding the projection AspP could be accounted for by features alone. In 3.2, I discuss a possible correlation between the presence of the ote mapping property in a language and the ability to form pp-accomplishments and resultatives. In 3.3, I discuss more language variation in inner aspect and speculate that it can be accounted for by assuming a different type of variation than the one noted in chapter five. Interestingly this second type of variation also seems to support a minimalist conception of language variation in which variation is variation. In 3.4, I note that although we find aspectually variable predicates, this aspectual variability is not entirely free; there is a gap. I provide a possible way to understand this gap in terms of complexity. In 3.5, I address the claim that event features alone are interpreted at the CI interface and its implications for the interpretation of the direct object as being “totally affected”.

1.  Summarizing the system In this book I have argued for a syntactic approach to inner aspect that employs a functional projection (AspP) and interpretable (event) features (〈ie〉 and 〈 fe〉) to account for the properties of English inner aspect. Agree with Asp syntactically instantiates the ote mapping (see chapter two, section 2.1); AspP also creates a domain of aspectual interpretation in which elements must be located in order to contribute to the aspectual interpretation of the predicate (see chapter two, section 3). A predicate with an 〈ie〉 feature describes an event interpreted as having

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

a beginning; a predicate with an 〈 fe〉 feature describes an event interpreted as having an end (see chapter three, sections 1–2). The syntactic aspectual properties of statives, activities, achievements and accomplishments are summarized in tree format in the syntactic typology of aspectual predicate types in (1).

(1) Syntactic typology of aspectual predicates types Aspectual predicate type No AspP

AspP (with 〈ie〉)

Stative

Eventive No 〈fe〉 Activity

〈fe〉 & 〈ie〉 on same head

on different heads

Achievement on V



Standard accomplishment

on P PP-accomplishment

Stative predicates differ from eventive predicates in that stative predicates lack AspP and eventive predicates possess AspP (see chapter five, section 1). Within the eventive predicates, atelic predicates (i.e., activities) differ from telic predicates (i.e., achievements and accomplishments) in that telic predicates have both an 〈ie〉 feature and an 〈 fe〉 feature, and atelic predicates have only an 〈ie〉 feature (see chapter three, sections 1–2). Achievements differ from accomplishments in that the 〈ie〉 and 〈 fe〉 feature are both on Asp in an event feature configuration for achievements, but on different heads for accomplishments. The punctual interpretation of the events described by achievements derives from the fact that there is no c-command relation between the 〈ie〉 an 〈 fe〉 feature. The extended time interpretation of the events described by accomplishments results from the fact that there is a c-command relation between the 〈ie〉 and 〈 fe〉 feature (see chapter three, sections 1.3, 2.3, and chapter four). The separation of AspP and event features was motivated in chapter one, section 2 by the observation that there are two independent properties at play in English inner aspect: the ote mapping property and es. This turns out to allow for a straightforward account of language variation from a minimalist perspective.



Chapter 8.  The syntactic nature of inner aspect and some speculative remarks 

The difference between stative predicates and eventive predicates in English turns out to be a difference between the absence and presence of AspP, respectively. We find the same variation between Russian and English, captured precisely in the same way, by the absence of AspP in the inventory of functional projections of Russian and by its presence in English (see chapter five, section 3.1). The difference between intra-linguistic variation and cross-linguistic variation becomes blurred; variation is variation. We might expect this situation from a minimalist perspective of minimizing computational complexity. To differentiate between elements that vary cross-linguistically and elements that vary intra-linguistically they must be marked differently; if we assume that they are simply marked as variant or not, then we reduce the number of elements entering into computation and we reduce computational complexity, in the spirit of minimalism. Furthermore, note that there is no formal way to determine whether two languages are two language or two dialects. If there is no formal way to differentiate between different dialects and different languages, then there is no formal way to differentiate between intralinguistic variation (variation between dialects of the same language) and crosslinguistic variation. We arrive at the same conclusion: variation is variation. Necessarily tied to the variant properties involved in language variation are the invariant, universal properties of language. Given that AspP (and the ote mapping) is the variant property, event features (and es) are the universal properties. We saw in chapter five that although there is no AspP in Russian, there is evidence for event features. It was argued that Russian imperfectives have the es properties of English activities, i.e., only an 〈ie〉 feature. That is, imperfectives describe events with only a beginning. Russian lexically prefixed perfectives have the es properties of English achievements, i.e., both an 〈ie〉 and 〈 fe〉 feature on the same head. Superlexical prefixes were argued to differ from lexical prefixes in that the 〈 fe〉 feature merges higher in the structure (see chapter five, section 3.2). Furthermore, by assuming that interpretable (event) features are universal properties, we assume little, given that interpretable features are found cross-linguistically. Under the assumption that the CI interface is uniform across languages, and the fact that interpretable features are legible at the CI interface, by definition, the simplest conclusion is that (interpretable) event features are universal. Moreover, consider the effects of merge on the relation between two event features. If these event features merge on different heads, given that merge forms hierarchical structures, a c-command relation between event features falls out for free, from merge. A c-command relation is arguably another way that syntax conforms to constraints imposed by the CI interface. Minimally it is required for interpreting operator variable relations (Chomsky 2007: 9, 17). Thus, if es is a universal property of inner aspect, then it is not surprising that interpretable features and c-command are involved.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

There is no c-command relation between the event features of achievements, because they form an event feature configuration on Asp. It was argued in chapter four that this resulted from a Hale & Keyser (1993, 2002) lexical derivational approach. The lexical derivation structures the event features such that only the highest in the configuration is visible to syntactic operations, although both are visible to semantics (see chapter five, section 1). Under minimalism this situation is not so unexpected. Packaging elements such that only the highest ones are visible to syntax reduces the search domain for syntactic operations, which reduces computational complexity. Syntax does not have to worry about the more deeply embedded elements, although they will still be interpreted at the CI interface. More can be interpreted at a lower cost to computation. We might say that complex lexical items have edges, and are phase-like in this way. This is not surprising if, in fact, the language faculty were optimized primarily to meet the needs of the CI interface (Chomsky 2005: 4, 13, 2007: 13), since packaging more into less, as is the case here, is driven by interpretation.

2.  The syntactic nature of inner aspect The main goal of this study has been to explore the syntactic nature of inner aspect. As in any inquiry into a natural phenomenon any conclusions drawn are necessarily tied to the framework in which the inquiry is carried out. Moreover, there are different levels at which the conclusions can be drawn in function of the specific technical details of that framework. This is the case for the conclusions reached here about the syntactic nature of inner aspect. Consider the place of syntax within the larger picture of the language faculty. Syntax is situated between the lexicon and an interpretive component. Elements go from the lexicon to the syntax, and then to the interpretative component. The observation that there are no accomplishment ips was taken to mean that there are no accomplishments in the lexicon (see chapter four, section 3). There are no accomplishments in the lexicon, but we know that there are predicates interpreted as accomplishments; thus, something must happen between the lexicon and the interpretive component that derives accomplishment predicates. Syntax must play a crucial role in the formation of accomplishments. This is one level at which the syntactic nature of inner aspect is manifested. Consider a fundamental property of narrow syntax itself: it is a computational system that hierarchically structures elements. Considering hierarchical structure alone, a conclusion that we can draw about inner aspect is that there is a privileged position within this hierarchical structure in which an np can affect the aspectual interpretation of the predicate. Tenny (1987: 147) made this observation about the



Chapter 8.  The syntactic nature of inner aspect and some speculative remarks 

argument that measures out the event. We can also add to this conclusion that this position not only affects the aspectual role of an np, but other elements as well (i.e., bps and goal Ps). There is a position within the verb phrase where elements above cannot contribute to aspectual interpretation and where elements below can (i.e., AspP between vp and vp; see chapter two). This is another level at which the syntactic nature of inner aspect is manifested. Exactly what role syntax plays in the formation of accomplishments depends on the technical details assumed. In the present study I assume a syntax in which a fundamental aspect of the computational system is a recursive mechanism that takes two syntactic objects and forms a new one: merge. Ultimately, merge derives hierarchical structures. Merge affects the relation between event features, such that an earlier merged event feature will be c-commanded by a later merged event feature (see chapter three, section 2). The relation between event features, as a result of merge, derives one crucial property of accomplishments: that time elapses between the beginning and the end of the event. Merge is part of syntax; merge derives this property of accomplishments. Also relevant is when this relation is interpreted. This takes place when Transfer to CI takes place, at the phase (see chapter three, section 3.2). Ultimately, whatever the correct technical formalization of how a sentence is sent to be interpreted, what is interpreted is a particular object derived via syntax. That is, at some point within the syntactic derivation, interpretation takes place. At Transfer, at the phase, event features and the relation between them are interpreted. Merge and Transfer to CI represent another level of the syntactic nature of inner aspect. Finally, recall that event features and AspP are independent elements of English inner aspect. Event features are universal; they are legible to the CI interface. AspP is a variant property and responsible for the ote mapping. The ote mapping is an Agree relation with Asp, and like all Agree relations, it is not legible at the CI interface. One final conclusion about the syntactic nature of inner aspect that can be drawn is that the ote mapping is purely syntactic in nature. 3.  Some speculative remarks 3.1  A possible alternative: AspP as a feature Given that, as argued here, there are interpretable features involved in the es of a predicate, we might try to explain the properties argued to be dependent on AspP by appealing to a feature (bundle) as opposed to a functional projection. I outline some relevant questions to this task and suggest how these answers would have to be approached for this to be the case. I have argued that there are three properties tied to the presence of AspP: the ote mapping, the sse interpretation of bps, and the domain of aspectual interpretation

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

(see chapter two). A natural question to ask is whether we would need three separate features to individually account for these three properties. First, note that if in fact we posit three separate features responsible for the three properties, then it might almost be by chance that these three features are bundled together in English. We might expect there to be a language in which these features are not bundled together. In this hypothetical language, these three features might be distributed throughout the verb phrase on different heads. We might also expect there to be a language in which one or more of the features are not present, while the others are. This would be a natural possibility if there were three separate features corresponding to the three properties argued to be tied to AspP. I am not aware of a language in which this is the case. Second, it is unlikely that there are three separate features, since, as discussed in chapter three, section 3 minimally the ote mapping property is intimately tied to the domain of aspectual interpretation. Essentially, the way in which an np participates in the ote mapping is by affecting the extent of the domain of aspectual interpretation. Affecting the extent of the domain of aspectual interpretation is the ote mapping property. Thus, it would be natural that only one feature were responsible for these two related properties. Let us assume, then, that one feature can take care of both of these properties. Third, there is a question about the sse interpretation of bps and whether or not it is dependent on the other two properties. Arguably it is also dependent on the other two properties in the following way. Since a bp must move from within the domain of aspectual interpretation to a position outside the domain of aspectual interpretation (see chapter two, section 2.2.2), there needs to be a domain of aspectual interpretation for the bp to be able to do so. Thus, in theory a bp could move in the same way as assumed here, but if it is not from within the domain of aspectual interpretation to a position outside, no sse interpretation results (see the interaction of bps with statives in chapter five, section 1). Consequently, again I assume that the sse interpretation does not need to be treated as a separate property. Therefore, if we attempt to account for the three properties argued to be dependent on AspP with a feature, we would only need to posit one feature. (See section 3.2 below for a more precise discussion of the relation between the ote mapping property, the domain of aspectual interpretation (including the effect of goal Ps) and the sse interpretation of bps.) Assuming AspP to be a (single) feature immediately produces two related distributional questions: 1. Where is this AspP-feature located in the verb phrase? and 2. If there is no AspP projection, where is the 〈ie〉 feature located in the verb phrase? Let us consider the possible location of the 〈ie〉 feature first. We cannot put 〈ie〉 on little v, since as we saw in chapter two, section 3 the CAUSE head ­introducing external arguments does not contribute to the aspectual interpretation



Chapter 8.  The syntactic nature of inner aspect and some speculative remarks 

of the predicate, because it is too high in the structure. So if 〈ie〉 were on little v, it would also be too high to contribute to aspectual interpretation, by the same reasoning. The other alternative is that 〈ie〉 is on big V. Now, if 〈ie〉 were on big V, this would not be a problem for activities or pp-accomplishments. It might, however, be a problem for the interpretation of standard accomplishments and achievements, since both 〈ie〉 and 〈 fe〉 would be on the same head for both predicate types. We could assume that while the two event features on the single head for achievements are derived via a lexical process, the two event features on a single head for accomplishments result from a syntactic process. These different processes would have to be such that they explain the range of differences between accomplishments and achievements, naturally. Now consider the AspP-feature and where it would appear. If it appears on big V, then we might have a problem with respect to the interpretation of es in cases where there is a [–q]np internal argument, since the 〈 fe〉 feature would also be on big V. We would need to redefine the domain of aspectual interpretation in such a way that the 〈 fe〉 feature, although on the same head as the AspP-feature, does not enter into the domain when there is a [–q]np internal argument. This of course, while at the same time, allowing the 〈ie〉 feature, which is on the same head, to enter into the domain. The task would be to redefine the domain of aspectual interpretation. There is a similar technical move necessary noted in chapter three, section 3.3 for achievements; but in that case we are able to appeal to labels. It is not immediately clear that in the present case of an AspP-feature we can appeal to labels. If the AspP-feature appears on little v, a similar problem arises when there is a [–q]np internal argument. Since the 〈ie〉 feature cannot appear on little v, it must be on big V (with the associated complications noted above for this move). How can it enter into the domain of aspectual interpretation at such a distance without the 〈 fe〉 feature entering, which is on the same head? These are some of the technical questions that would come up by assuming that there is an AspP-feature, in contrast to an AspP projection. I simply conclude this speculation by noting that although technically it may be executable, it creates many new questions. 3.2  A possible correlation I noted in the previous section that the three properties dependent on AspP seem to all be intimately tied to each other. Here I explore the relation between these three properties in more detail. The result is a possible correlation between the ote mapping and the ability to form pp-accomplishments (and resultatives). Consider the ote mapping. The [q] feature of an np (not dp; see chapter two, section 2.1.1) in a certain relation with Asp affects the interpretation of the es

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

of the predicate. It seems plausible that the [q] feature of nps is found crosslinguistically; it is most likely universal. In the extreme case, it may be that all nouns in a particular language are [+q] or that they are all [–q]. For a language that has all [+q]nps and AspP there is no reason why it should not behave like English in which some predicates are telic and some are atelic. There need only be a way to block (or eliminate) Agree with Asp to derive the atelic predicates (see the discussion of Finnish from chapter six, section 2.1.2). Likewise, for a language with only [–q]nps and AspP, there is no reason why it should not behave like English as well. There need only be a construction which somehow forces a [+q] interpretation, something like what happens in classifier languages perhaps. Now, that there is a language in which no noun possesses a [q] feature seems unlikely. It is not clear what the denotation of this np would be. There is a possibility that there are roots, in which there is no [q] feature, but these would be roots, not nps. Therefore, I assume that the [q] feature of nps is a universal feature. Consequently, the only way in which a language would not possess the ote mapping property is by not possessing AspP. Now if the language has the ote mapping property, this language will also have the domain of aspectual interpretation, because, as noted above in section 3.1 (and based on conclusions from chapter three, section 3) these two properties are intimately related. If a language has AspP, that language has a domain of aspectual interpretation. Now consider a crucial aspect of the ability of a goal P to form pp-accomplishments: it must be within the domain of aspectual interpretation. We observed two ways for a goal P to fall outside the domain of aspectual interpretation: 1. When a [–q]np valued Asp; and 2. When the goal P merged above AspP, as with ambiguous goal-location prepositions (see chapter two, section 3). Now recall that English has directional Ps that seem to merge as complements of the verb (see chapter three, section 3), and therefore within the domain of aspectual interpretation, yet they do not contribute to aspectual interpretation; they seem to lack an 〈 fe〉 feature. Thus even in a language that has a domain of aspectual interpretation there are ate least two ways in which their prepositional phrases could not contribute to aspectual interpretation: 1. By being outside the domain of aspectual interpretation; 2. Or by not possessing an 〈 fe〉 feature (cf. Snyder 1995; Beck & Snyder 2001). There is only one way in which a P can contribute to aspectual interpretation: by possessing an 〈 fe〉 feature and by merging below AspP within the domain of aspectual interpretation. Now consider the see interpretation. For a bp to elicit an sse interpretation, the predicate must be telic, and the bp must move from within the domain of aspectual interpretation to a position outside the domain of aspectual interpretation (see chapter two, section 2.2). Note that in a language that has a domain of aspectual interpretation, there are at least three ways that a bp might not elicit an



Chapter 8.  The syntactic nature of inner aspect and some speculative remarks 

sse interpretation: 1. The bp cannot move outside the domain of aspectual interpretation, either because it is stuck on an island (i.e., complex nps; see chapter two, section 2.2.2), or because there is no domain to move out of (i.e., stative predicates and Russian; see chapter five, sections 1 and 3.1 respectively); 2. The predicate is atelic; and 3. The bp can only receive a mn interpretation; or, to put it another way, it cannot introduce existential quantification. The second is related to the first in as much as when the predicate is atelic in a language that has AspP, there is a minimal domain of aspectual interpretation such that no bp can be within it. In contrast, there is only one way for a bp to elicit an sse interpretation: it must be able to introduce existential quantificational, it must be within the domain of aspectual interpretation, and it must be able to move outside it (to Spec, AspP). Consider the relation between these three properties argued to be dependent on AspP. The ability of a P to form a pp-accomplishment and the ability of a bp to elicit an sse interpretation are crucially dependent on the domain of aspectual interpretation. Now, as has been noted, the ote mapping property is intimately tied to the domain of aspectual interpretation. Thus, the ability of a P to form a pp-accomplishment and the ability of a bp to elicit an sse interpretation are dependent on the ote mapping. That is, we can make the correlation that if a language does not show the ote mapping property then in that language Ps will not be able to form pp-accomplishments, and bps will not be able to elicit sse interpretations. Note that a P might allow for a goal interpretation, although crucially it will not make an atelic predicate telic. The inverse correlation will not hold, for as we noted, there is more than one way for a P to fail to form a pp-accomplishment and there is more than one way for a bp to fail to elicit an sse interpretation, even in a language that has AspP. In as much as the relation between these properties holds, as seems to be the case for English, this correlation is predicted to exist. One interesting test case for this correlation might be Bulgarian. For as noted in chapter five, section 4, certain verbs of Bulgarian (late borrowings according to Slabakova 1997: 692) show the ote mapping property, whereas other verbs do not. If this is actually the case, we expect that some Ps with late borrowings have the possibility to form pp-accomplishments, while with other verbs they would not. Again, though, even for a language that has AspP and a domain of aspectual interpretation, there is more than one way in which a P can fail to create a pp-accomplishment. Pushing the correlation further, and if we keep in mind the conclusion from chapter seven, section 1 that resultatives have the same aspectual syntactic structure of pp-accomplishments, we expect the correlation to extend to resultatives as well. Specifically, although the language might have resultative phrases,

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

the result phrase will not turn an atelic predicate telic. Consider statives, which lack AspP, and therefore no domain of aspectual interpretation. Goldberg & Jackendoff (2004: 543) put forth the following as stative path resultatives: The road zigzagged down the hill; The rope stretched over the pulley; and The weights stretched the rope over the pulley. These atelic resultatives suggest that the correlation is correct. Again, the inverse correlation will not old, given that there are a range of other conditions that are necessary for a language to produce resultative constructions. If the correlation holds, I take this as evidence that the ote mapping property and the domain of aspectual interpretation are intimately related. 3.3  Minimalism and two types of variation Language variation can be accounted for by the presence vs. absence of a particular element. Let us refer to this type of variation as Type 1 variation. Another locus of language variation is in the construction of lexical items: “…one element of parameter-setting is assembly of features into lexical items…” (Chomsky 2005: 3), “…an inescapable step in fixing a language…” (Chomsky 2000: 141 n. 20). I take this to mean that given the same (set of) features in two languages, these features can be distributed differently over lexical items, or throughout the phrase structure (see, for example, Pylkkänen 2002); let us refer to this type as Type 2 variation. Consider event features with respect to Type 2 variation. Event features are claimed to be universal features. Nevertheless, languages may differ by how they distribute these event features. Consider the distribution of the 〈ie〉 feature in Russian; it appears on big V. In English it appears on AspP. Consider the distribution of 〈 fe〉 in Russian; it can appear on big V, introduced by a prefix, or it can merge higher in the structure. In English it can also appear on big V, and it can appear on goal Ps as well. It was suggested in chapter five that under a particular view of minimalist language variation, variation is variation, there being no difference between crosslinguistic, intra-linguistic, or optional-linguistic variation. We find the same situation with respect to the distribution of event features. First, as just noted, their distributions within the verb phrase differ between English and Russian. Moreover, when considering English alone, the different distributions of the event features derive the different aspectual predicate types; this is illustrated above in the syntactic typology of aspectual predicate types in (1). Thus, both cross-linguistically and intra-linguistically event features show a variety of distributions. Let us speculate about more variation of Type 2 within inner aspect. Consider the interpretation of the durative phrase in English in contrast to its possible interpretations in Russian. As discussed in chapter two, section 1 the durative in English



Chapter 8.  The syntactic nature of inner aspect and some speculative remarks 

modifies the whole event. This modification results in an iterative interpretation with a telic predicate and a single event interpretation with an atelic predicate. In Russian, the durative does not elicit an iterative interpretation of the predicate. The durative is only compatible with atelic predicates, as if only able to modify the beginning of the event. Related to the modification abilities of English is the adjunction site of the durative. As noted in chapter two, section 1 the durative is assumed to adjoin to vp, and in this way it can modify the properties of the entire event, and give rise to an iterative interpretation. As noted in chapter five, the ability of the Russian durative to modify the beginning of the event derived from it adjoining to vp. Ultimately then the different interpretations of the durative in these different languages arise from the different distributions of the durative throughout the verb phrase (see Csirmaz (forthcoming) for similar assumptions regarding the durative phrase). In English it can modify vp (on the iterative interpretation), while this is not the case for Russian. In Russian, it can only modify vp (on an atelic interpretation). Consider the same Type 2 variation with respect to the durative in English. Jackendoff (1996: 306) and Tenny (1987: 22) observe that for some speakers there is a grammatical interpretation of the durative phrase in English with accomplishments in which the durative indicates the length of the event, but only on the interpretation that the event does not reach it end. Alsina (1999: 103) claims that on this interpretation, the durative targets the initial subevent of a telic predicate. Thus, for some speakers of English the durative can modify the beginning of the event with an accomplishment, while for others it cannot. This is intra-linguistic variation with respect to the distribution of the durative. Table 1 summarizes the properties discussed and the speculated sources of variation. Table 1.  Two types of variation Parameter

English (AspP)

Type 1 Variation

AspP

Russian (No AspP)

ote mapping

No ote mapping



sse

No see



Ps form pp-accomp

Ps do not form pp-accomp

Type 2 Variation

〈ie〉 on Asp

〈ie〉 on big V



〈 fe〉 on Asp

〈 fe〉 on big V



〈 fe〉 on big V

〈 fe〉 high in structure



〈 fe〉 on P

〈 fe〉 on P ??

Durative phrase

at vP



at vp

Event features

at vp

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

3.4  Aspectual variability is not free Consider the range of aspectually variable predicates discussed in chapter six. We saw accomplishment-activity alternations repeated in (2), achievement-activity alternations repeated in (3), stative-activity alternations repeated in (4), and stativeachievement alternations repeated in (5). (2) a. John read the newspaper in an hour/for an hour. b. John washed the car in an hour/for an hour. (3) a. The workers widened the street. b. The king expanded the empire. (4) a. John thought that color had odor/thought about it (for a minute). b. John weighed 110 lbs/weighed the material for an hour. (5) a. The snow covered the field. b. The army surrounded the compound.

It is interesting to note that, as far as I am aware, there are no cases of accomplishment-stative or accomplishment-achievement alternations. Note that in both of these unattested alternation types one of the alternates is an accomplishment. Given that syntax plays a crucial role in the formation of accomplishments, it is tempting to claim that there is something about accomplishments and the role that syntax plays in their formation that prevents these alternations. Never­ theless, it is not clear that this is the case given that there are accomplishmentactivity alternations, as indicated in (2). We will consider a different source of the gap. Consider the attested alternations within the system of inner aspect developed here. Cases of accomplishment-activity variability show the alternation in aspectual syntactic structure illustrated in (6); cases of achievement-activity variability, the alternations in (7); cases of stative-activity variability in (8), and stativeachievement alternations in (9). (6)

a.

...vP v

b.





v

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

VP〈fe〉 V 〈fe〉

...vP AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

...

VP V

...



Chapter 8.  The syntactic nature of inner aspect and some speculative remarks 

(7)

a.

...vP v

b.



〈fe〉 〈ie〉

(8)

a.

VP

...vP

v

VP ...

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

VP V

a.

...vP v

b.

...

...

...vP

v

VP V



VP V

(9)



...

b.

V

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

V

...vP v



v

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

...vP

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉 〈fe〉 〈ie〉

VP V

...

In terms of the representation of each aspectual predicate type, there is a commonality transcending each of the alternations in (6) to (9). In each case, there is only one “operation” or “step” required to derive the alternate. Consider accomplishmentactivity alternations in (6); to derive an activity from an accomplishment, simply remove the 〈 fe〉 feature from big V; to derive the accomplishment from the activity simply add the 〈 fe〉 feature to big V. Consider achievement-activity alternations in (7); to derive an activity from an achievement, simply remove the 〈 fe〉 from Asp; to derive the achievement from the activity, simply add the 〈 fe〉 to Asp. Consider the stative-activity alternations in (8); to derive a stative from an activity, simply remove AspP; to derive an activity from a stative, simple add AspP. Adding AspP, adds the 〈ie〉 feature automatically by assumption. Finally, consider the stativeachievement alternation in (9). To derive the stative from the achievement, simply

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

remove AspP (which bears the event feature configuration); to derive the achievement from the stative, simple add Asp bearing the event feature configuration. In this light consider the number of operations involved in the accomplishment-achievement alternation in (10) and the accomplishment-stative alternation in (11). (10)

a.

...vP

v

b.



VP〈fe〉 VP 〈fe〉

(11)

a.



...

〈fe〉 〈ie〉 b.

VP〈fe〉 VP 〈fe〉

VP V

...

...vP

v

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

...vP

v



v

AspP〈ie〉 Asp 〈ie〉

...vP

VP V

...

...

In each case, two “operations” or “steps” are involved. Consider the accomplishmentachievement alternation in (10) first; to derive an achievement from an accomplishment, one of the operations is to remove the 〈 fe〉 feature from big V, and the other operation is to add an 〈 fe〉 to Asp; to derive an accomplishment from an achievement the inverse operations are involved. Consider the accomplishmentstative alternation now in (11); to derive an accomplishment from a stative, one of the operations is to add AspP, and the other is to add the 〈 fe〉 feature to big V; to derive a stative from an accomplishment, note that it seems that it would be enough to simply remove AspP, thereby eliminating the domain of aspectual interpretation, and thereby eliminating the effect that the presence of 〈 fe〉 would have, without having to remove the 〈 fe〉 directly. In this latter case, there is arguably only one operation involved. Nevertheless, I assume that the same number of operations are involved whether beginning with a stative and deriving an accomplishment or whether beginning with an accomplishment and deriving a stative. Therefore, given that to derive an accomplishment from a stative two operations are necessary, I assume that to derive a stative from an accomplishment



Chapter 8.  The syntactic nature of inner aspect and some speculative remarks 

two operations are also involved, although there exists an alternative operation involving less steps. In this way aspectual variability is symmetrical. Why should two operations be illicit? The answer may be related to the notion of complexity in grammar (see Newmeyer 2007 for a discussion of complexity in grammar); carrying out two operations on the same representation might be too complex. Crucially, note that to understand this lack of aspectual alternation in terms of complexity, there needs to be a level at which these aspectual structures are represented; that is, there needs to be some representation of the es of an activity, accomplishment, activity and stative in order to be able to “count” the steps from the initial representation to the final representation. If the es of a predicate has a representation at some level, there are three possibilities: the lexicon, the syntax, or the semantics. Given the discussion from chapter four in which it was concluded that there are no accomplishments in the lexicon it does not seem possible that these aspectual predicates could be represented in their full form in the lexicon. Now, since syntax is not an interpretative component there should be no representation of these aspectual predicates there either. (Note briefly that a logical possibility is that the syntactic derivation is able to rule out certain structures necessary to build up the ultimate representation that would be fed to the semantics and thereby prevent the alternations discussed. This is a logical possibility that I do not pursue here.) The appropriate location then would be semantics. Let us assume that this is the case and speculate on what this would entail for the representation of aspect. If these aspectual structures are represented in the semantics, there needs also to be some way in the semantic component to recover the information regarding the initial representation, if the reason that accomplishment-achievement and accomplishment-stative alternations are unattested is because of the increased number of steps to derive them. It might be the case that one operation on a representation allows for a recovery of the initial representation and this would satisfy some basic function/requirement of the semantic component. Two operations, on the other hand, may be too many to be able to recover the initial representation, in which case the semantic component might not be able to carry out this basic function, or satisfy this basic requirement. 3.5  Entailing totally affected objects Recall the conclusion from chapter three that only es is visible to the CI interface; the ote mapping itself is not legible at the CI interface. In light of these conclusions, a natural question arises with respect to the intuition that the objects of telic predicates are totally affected objects. More specifically, in an accomplishment like John drank a pitcher of beer. if the ote mapping property is not interpreted at

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect

the CI interface, where does the interpretation that the event ends when the entire pitcher of beer is drunk come from? Or, to put it in other terms, what gives rise to the interpretation that the whole pitcher of beer is drunk? I assume here that this interpretation is simply an entailment that results from a combination of the lexical semantics of the verb in question and the fact that there is an interpretation that the event described has a beginning and an end. Because the event described is interpreted as having a beginning and an end, and given that drink is a verb that involves the ingestion of liquid, there is an entailment that the whole object is ingested. If this is on the right track, then we expect in languages that do not show the ote mapping that the same entailment holds. Ramchand (1993: 418) notes with respect to Scottish Gaelic that “the past tense produces a telic reading regardless of structure of the np object it appears with.” She provides the following examples with the verbs in past tense. (12) a. *Dè cho fada’s a dh’òl thu leann? How long that drink-past you-nom beer “How long did you drink beer for?” b. *Dè cho fada’s a dh’òl thu an cupa tì? How long that drink-past you-nom the cup of tea “How long did you drink the cup of tea for?”

There is a mass noun in (12a) and a count noun in (12b). Regardless, asking about the duration of the event (i.e., how long) results in ungrammaticality. Interestingly, in her system when there is a perfective value, i.e., when there is perfective morphology on the verb or the verb is in past tense, the np object is interpreted as a completely affected argument. There is no ote mapping in Scottish Gaelic, nevertheless, there is an interpretation that the denotation of the direct object is “totally affected”. I assume that this results from an entailment of an event that has a beginning and an end, and is not directly linguistically encoded.

References Abraham, W. 2008. Methodological considerations on grammar variation. The right periphery as an OV/VO deciding parameter more so than the left periphery: Gradience in the verb cluster. In Describing and modelling variation in grammar. A. Dufter, J. Fleischer & G. Seiler (Eds), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Abraham, W., Epstein, S.D., Thráinsson, H. & Zwart, J-W. (Eds). 1996. Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in the Minimalist framework. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. & Everaert, M. (Eds). 2004. The unaccusativity puzzle. Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alexiadou, A., Law, P. & Wilder, C. (Eds). 2000. The syntax of relative clauses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alexiadou, A. & Svenonius, P. (Eds). 2000. Adverbs and adjunction. Potsdam: Linguistics in Potsdam 6. Allen, K. 1980. Nouns and countability. Language 56(3): 541–567. Alsina, A. 1999. On the representation of event etructure. In Grammatical semantics: Evidence for structure in meaning, T. Mohanan & L. Wee (Eds), 77–122. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Antony, L. & Hornstein, N. (Eds). 2003. Chomsky and his critics. Massachusetts: Blackwell. Babko-Malaya, O. 1997. On aspect and case in Russian. In Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Indiana Meeting 1996, M. Lindseth & S. Franks (Eds), 18–37. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications Babko-Malaya, O. 2003. Perfectivity and prefixation in Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 11(1): 5–36. Babyonyshev, M. 1999. ‘Missing’ verb classes in Russian. Paper presented at FASL8, University of Pennsylvania. Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Baker, M. 2008. The syntax of Agreement and concord. [Cambridge studies in Linguistics 115] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bartsch, R., van Benthem, J. & van Emde Boas, P. (Eds). 1989. Semantics and contextual expression. Dordrecht: Foris Publications Beavers, J. 2008. Scalar complexity and the structure of events. In Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation, J. Dölling & T. Heyde-Zybatow (Eds), 245–268. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Beck, S. & Snyder, W. 2001. Complex predicates and goal PP’s: Evidence for a semantic parameter. In Proceedings of the 25th Boston University Conference on Language Development, A.H.-J. Do, L. Dominguez & A. Johansen (Eds), 114–122. Somerville, Massachusetts: Cascadilla Press. Beckman, J. (Ed.). 1995. Proceedings of NELS 25, Vol. 1: Papers from the Main Session. UMass, Amherst: GLSA. Belletti, A. (Ed.). 2004. Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures volume. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect Benedicto, E. & Runner, J. (Eds). 1994. Functional projections. UMass, Amherst: GLSA. Beyssade, C., Bok-Bennema, R., Drijkoningen, F. & Monachesi, P. (Eds). 2000. Romance languages and linguistic theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Billings, S., Boyle, J. & Griffith, A. (Eds). 1999. Proceedings of CLS 35, Vol. 1: The Main Session. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago. Boeckx, C. & Grohmann, K. 2007. Remark: putting phases in perspective. Syntax 10(2): 204–222. Borer, H. 1994. The projections of arguments. In Functional projections, E. Benedicto & J. Runner (Eds), 19–47. UMass, Amherst: GLSA. Borer, B. 1998. Passive without theta grids. In Morphology and its relations to phonology, S. Lapointe, P. Farrell & D. Brentari (Eds), 60–99. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Borer, B. 2005. Structuring sense II: The normal course of events. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. Borik, O. 2002. Aspect and reference time. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht. Brucart, JM., Gavarró, A. & Solà, J. (Eds). forthcoming. Merging features: Computation, interpretation, and acquisition. Oxford: OUP. Butt, M. & Geuder, W. (Eds). 1998. The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Cappelle, B. & Declerck, R. 2005. Spatial and temporal boundedness in English motion events. Journal of Pragmatics 37(6): 889–917. Carlson, G.N. 1977. A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(3): 413–457. Carlson, G.N. 2006. The meaningful bounds of incorporation. In Non-definiteness and plurality. S. Vogeleer & L. Tasmowski (Eds), 35–50. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today series] Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Carrier, J. & Randall, J.H. 1992. The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23(2): 173–234. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist program. Cambridge, Massachusetts/London, England: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework, In Step by step: Essays in minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (Eds), 89–155. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), 1–52. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures Vol. 3, A. Belletti (Ed.), 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, N. 2005. On phases. Ms. MIT. [Published in Foundational issues in linguistic theory, R. Freidin, C. Otero & M. Zubizaretta (Eds), Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. 2008.] Chomsky, N. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Interfaces + recursion = language?: Chomsky’s Minimalism and the view from syntax-Semantics, U. Sauerland & M. Gartner (Eds), 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coopmans, P., Everaert, M. & Grimshaw, J. (Eds). 2000. Lexical specification and insertion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Csirmaz, A. forthcoming. Homogeneity and flexibility in temporal modification. In Merging features: Computation interpretation and acquisition, J.M. Brucart, A. Gavarró & J. Solà (Eds), Oxford: OUP.



References 

Dahl, Ö. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. London/New York: Basil Blackwell. de Groot, C. & Tommola, H. (Eds). 1984. Aspect bound: A voyage into the realm of Germanic, Slavonic and Finno-Ugrian aspectology. Dordrecht, Holland/Cinnaminson, USA: Foris Publications Demirdache, H. & Uribe-Etxebarria, M. 2000. The primitives of temporal relations. In Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (Eds), 157–186. Cambridge:MIT Press. Demirdache, H. & Uribe-Etxebarria, M. 2004. The syntax of time adverbs. In The syntax of time, J. Guéron & J. Lecarme (Eds), 143–180. Cambridge: MIT Press. Depraetere, I. 1995. On the necessity of distinguishing between (un)boundedness and (a)telicity. Linguistics and Philosophy 18(1): 1–19. de Saussure, L., Moeschler, J. & Puskas, G. (Eds). 2007. Recent advances in the syntax and semantics of tense, aspect, and modality. [Trends in Linguistics Series] Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dickey, S.M. 2000. Parameters of Slavic aspect. A cognitive approach. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Di Sciullo, A.-M. 1999. Verbal structure and variation. In Semantic issues in romance syntax, E. Trevino & J. Lena (Eds), 39–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Di Sciullo, A.-M. & Slabakova, R. 2005. Quantification and aspect. In Perspectives on aspect: Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics 32, H. Verkuyl, H. de Swart & A. van Hout (Eds), 61–80. Netherlands: Springer. Do, A.H.-J., Dominguez, L. & Johansen, A. (Eds). 2001. Proceedings of the 25th Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, Massachusetts: Cascadilla Press. Dowty, D.R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht/Holland/Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(1): 547–619. Dufter, A., Fleischer, J. & Seiler, G. (Eds). 2008. Describing and modelling variation in grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Epstein, S.D. & Hornstein, N. (Eds). 1999. Working minimalism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Ernst, T. 2002. The syntax of adjuncts. [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 96] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Erteschik-Shir, N. & Rapoport, T. 2004. Bare aspect: A theory of syntactic projection. In The syntax of time, J. Guéron & J. Lecarme (Eds), 217–234. Cambridge: MIT Press. Erteschik-Shir, N. & Rapoport, T. (Eds). 2005. The syntax of aspect: Deriving thematic and aspectual interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Filip, H. 1999. Aspect, eventuality types, and nominal reference. New York: Garland Publishing. Filip, H. 2000. The quantization puzzle. In Events as grammatical objects: the converging perspectives of lexical semantics and syntax, C. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (Eds), 39–96. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Folli, R. 2000. Resultatives: small clauses or complex VPs? In Romance languages and linguistic theory, C. Beyssade, R. Bok-Bennema, F. Drijkoningen & P. Monachesi (Eds), 153–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Folli, R. & Ramchand, G. 2001. Getting results: motion constructions in Italian and Scottish Gaelic. In WCCFL 20 Proceedings, K. Megerdoomian & L.A. Barel (Eds), 192–205. Somerville, Massachusetts: Cascadilla Press. Freidin, R., Otero, C. & Zubizaretta, M. (Eds). 2008. Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect Garding, G. & Tsujimura, M. (Eds). 2004. Proceedings of WCCFL 23. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Gehrke, B. in press. Goals and sources are aspectually equal: Evidence from Czech and Russian prefixes. Lingua [cited from draft online made available on 27 September 2007 by Elsevier] Glasbey, S.R. 2003. Let’s paint the town red for a few hours: Composition of aspect in idioms. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop, the Lexicon and Figurative Language, A.M. Wallington (Ed.), 43–49. Sapporo, Japan. Glasbey, S.R. 2007. Aspectual composition in idioms. In Recent advances in the syntax and semantics of tense, aspect, and modality [Trends in Linguistics Series], L. de Saussure, J. Moeschler & G. Puskas (Eds), 71–88. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Goldberg, A. & Jackendoff, R. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions, Language 80(3): 532–568. Guéron, J. 2004. Tense construal and the argument structure of auxiliaries. In The syntax of time. J.Guéron & J. Lecarme (Eds), 299–328. Cambridge: MIT Press. Guéron, J. & Lecarme, J. (Eds). 2004. The syntax of time 143–180. Cambridge: MIT Press. Gulland, G.M. & Hinds-Howell, D. (Eds). 2002 The Penguin dictionary of English idioms. 3rd ed. London: Penguin Books. Hale, K. & Keyser, S.J. (Eds). 1993. The view from building 20. Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, Massachusetts/London, England: The MIT Press Hale, K. & Keyser, S.J. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The view from building 20. Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, K. Hale & S.J. Keyser (Eds), 53–109. Cambridge, Massachusetts/London, England: The MIT Press Hale, K. & Keyser, S.J. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, Massachusetts/London, England: The MIT Press Halle, M. & Marantz, A. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20. Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, K. Hale & S.J. Keyser (Eds), 111–176. Cambridge, Massachusetts/London, England: The MIT Press Halle, M. & Marantz, A. 1994. Some key features of distributed morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 275–288. Hallman, P. 2004. Constituency and agency in VP In Proceedings of WCCFL 23, G. Garding & M. Tsujimura (Eds), 304–317. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Harley, H. 2005. How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation, and the ontology of verb roots in English. In The syntax of aspect: Deriving thematic and aspectual interpretation, N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (Eds), 42–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hawthorne, J. & Zimmerman, D. (Eds). 2003. Philosophical perspectives 17, language and philosophical linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press Hay, J., Kennedy, C. & Levin., B. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in “degree achievements”. In Proceedings of SALT IX, T. Mathews & D. Strolovitch (Eds), 127–144. Ithaca, New York: CLC Publications. Heinämäki, O. 1984. Aspect in Finnish. In Aspect bound: A voyage into the realm of Germanic, Slavonic and Finno-Ugrian aspectology, C. de Groot & H. Tommola (Eds), 153–177. Dordrecht, Holland/Cinnaminson, USA: Foris Publications. Higginbotham, J., Pianesi, F. & Varzi, A.C. (Eds). 2000. Speaking of events. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hoekstra, T. 1988. Small clause results. Lingua 74(2–3): 101–139.



References 

van Hout, A. 2000. Projection based on event structure. In Lexical specification and insertion, P. Coopmans, M. Everaert & J. Grimshaw (Eds), 403–427. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. van Hout, A. 2004. Unaccusativity as telicity checking. In The unaccusativity puzzle. Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface, A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou & M. Everaert (Eds), 60–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Jackendoff, R. 1996. The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14(2): 305–354. Karimi, S., Samiian, V. & Wilkins, W.K. (Eds). 2007. Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kayne, R.S. 2000. Parameters and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kempchinsky, P. & Slabakova, R. (Eds). 2005. Aspectual inquiries. Dordrecht: Springer. Kenstowicz, M. (Ed.). 2001. Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Kiparsky, P. 1998. Partitive case and aspect. In The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds), 265–308. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Klein, W. 1995. A time-relational analysis of Russian aspect. Language 71(4): 669–695. Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the external argument from the verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (Eds), 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kratzer, A. 2004. Telicity and the meaning of objective case. In The syntax of time, J. Guéron & J. Lecarme (Eds), 389–423. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Krifka, M. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Semantics and contextual expression, R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem & P. van Emde Boas (Eds), 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris Publications Krifka, M. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Lexical matters, I. Sag & A. Szabolsci (Eds), 29–53. Stanford: CSLI. Lapointe, S., Farrell, P. & Brentari, D. (Eds). 1998. Morphology and its relations to phonology. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Larson, R. 2003. Time and event measure. In Philosophical perspectives 17, language and philosophical linguistics, J. Hawthorne & D. Zimmerman (Eds), 247–258. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Levin, B. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press. Levin, B. 1999. Objecthood: an event structure perspective. In Proceedings of CLS 35, Vol. 1: The Main Session, S. Billings, J. Boyle & A. Griffith (Eds), 223–247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago. Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Levin, B., Rappaport, M. & Zaenen, A. (Eds). 1983. Papers in lexical-functional grammar. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Lindseth, M. & Franks, S. (Eds). 1997. Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Indiana Meeting 1996. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications Ludlow, P. 2003. Referential semantics for I-language? In Chomsky and his critics, L. Antony & N. Hornstein (Eds), 140–161. Massachusetts: Blackwell. MacDonald, J.E. 2004. Spanish reflexive pronouns: a null preposition hypothesis. In Proceedings of WCCFL 23, G. Garding & M. Tsujimura (Eds), 528–540. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect MacDonald, J.E. 2006a. Null directional prepositions in Romanian and Spanish. In New perspectives in romance linguistics Vol.1: morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Selected papers from the 35th Linguistics Symposium on Romance Linguistics, J.P. Montreuil & C. Nishida (Eds), 169–185. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. MacDonald, J.E. 2006b. The syntax of inner aspect. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stony Brook University. MacDonald, J.E. 2008. Domain of aspectual interpretation. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1): 128–147. Marantz, A. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Martin, R., Michaels, D. & Uriagereka, J. (Eds). 2000. Step by step: Essays in Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Mateu, J. 2002. Argument structure: relational construal at the syntax-semantics interface. Ph.D. Dissertation, Autonomous University of Barcelona. Mateu, J. & Espinal, M.T. 2007. Argument structure and compositionality in idiomatic constructions. The Linguistic Review 24(1): 33–59. Mathews, T. & Strolovitch, D. (Eds). 1999. Proceedings of SALT IX. Ithaca, New York: CLC Publications. McClure, W. 1993. Unaccusativity and ‘inner’ aspect. WCCFL Proceedings 11: 313–325. McGinnis, M. 2002. On the systematic aspect of idioms. Linguistic Inquiry 33(4): 659–664. Megerdoomian, K. 2001. Event structure and complex predicates in Persian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique 46(1/2): 97–125. Megerdoomian, K. & Bar-el, L.A. (Eds). 2001. WCCFL 20 Proceedings. Somerville, Massachusetts: Cascadilla Press. Mittwoch, A. 1991. In defense of Vendler’s achievements. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 6: 71–84. Mohanan, T. & Wee, L. (Eds). 1999. Grammatical semantics: Evidence for structure in meaning. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Moltmann, F. 1991. Measure adverbials. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(6): 629–660. Montreuil, J.P. & Nishida, C. (Eds). 2006. New perspectives in romance linguistics Vol.1: Morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Selected papers from the 35th Linguistics Symposium on Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Newmeyer, F. 2007. More complicated and hence, rarer: a look at grammatical complexity and crosslinguistic reality. In Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, In honor of Joseph E. Emonds. S. Karimi, V. Samiian & W.K. Wilkins (Eds), 221–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nishida, C. 1994. The Spanish reflexive clitic se as an aspectual class marker. Linguistics 32(3): 425–458. Nunberg, G., Sag, I. & Wasow, T. 1994. Idioms Language 70(3): 491–538. Parodi, C., Quicoli, C., Saltarelli, M. & Zubizarreta, M.L. (Eds). 1996. Aspects of romance linguistics. Washington DC: Georgetown UP. Pereltsvaig, A. 2000. On accusative adverbials in Russian and Finnish. In Adverbs and adjunction, A. Alexiadou & P. Svenonius (Eds), 155–176. Potsdam: Linguistics in Potsdam 6. Pereltsvaig, A. 2003. Syntax of denominal and ditransitive verbs reconsidered. Ms. Stanford University. Pustejovsky, J. 1991. The syntax of event structure. Cognition 41(1–3): 47–81. Pustejovsky, J. (Ed.). 1993. Semantics and the lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Pylkkänen, M. 2002. Introducing arguments. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.



References 

Ramchand, G. 1993. Aspect phrase in modern Scottish Gaelic. In Proceedings of NELS 23, A. Schafer (Ed.), 415–429. UMass, Amherst: GLSA. Ramchand, G. 1998. Deconstructing the lexicon. In The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds), 65–96. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Ramchand, G. 2003. First phase syntax. Ms. University of Oxford. Ramchand, G. 2004. Time and the event: the semantics of Russian prefixes. Nordlyd [Special issue on Slavic prefixes] 32(2): 323–361. CASTL, Tromsø. Online at www.ub.uit.no/munin/ nordlyd/ Rapp, I. & von Stechow, A. 1999. Fast ‘almost’ and the visibility parameter for functional adverbs. Journal of Semantics 16(2): 149–204. Rappaport Hovav, M. & Levin, B. 2001. An event structure account of English resultatives. Language 77(4): 766–797. Rassudova, O.P. 1982. Upotreblenie vidov glagola v sovremennom russkom jazyke. 2d ed. Moscow: Russkij jazyk. Reinhart, T. & Siloni, T. 2005. The lexicon-syntax parameter: reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36(3): 389–436. Richards, N. 2001. An idiomatic argument for lexical decomposition. Linguistic Inquiry 32(1): 183–192. Ritter, E. & Rosen, S. 1998. Delimiting events in syntax. In The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds), 135–164. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Ritter, E. & Rosen, S. 2000. Event structure and ergativity. In Events as grammatical objects: The converging perspectives of lexical semantics and syntax, C. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (Eds), 187–238. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Roeper, T. 1993. Explicit syntax in the lexicon: The representation of nominalizations. In Semantics and the lexicon, J. Pustejovsky (Ed.), 185–220. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rooryck, J. & Zaring, L. (Eds). 1996. Phrase structure and the lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rothstein, S. 2004. Structuring events. Oxford: Blackwell. Sag, I. & Szabolsci, A. (Eds). 1992. Lexical matters. Stanford: CSLI. Sanz, M. 1999. Aktionsart and transitive phrases. In Semantic issues in Romance syntax, E. Treviño & J. Lema (Eds), 247–261. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sanz, M. 2000. Events and predication: A new approach to syntactic processing in English and Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sauerland, U. & Gartner, M. (Eds). 2007. Interfaces + recursion = language?: Chomsky’s Minimalism and the view from syntax-Semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Schafer, A. (Ed.). 1993. Proceedings of NELS 23. UMass, Amherst: GLSA. Schmitt, C.J. 1996. Aspect and the syntax of noun phrases. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland at College Park. Schmitt, C. 2000. Some consequences of the complement analysis for relative clauses, demonstratives and the wrong adjectives. In The syntax of relative clauses, A. Alexiadou, P. Law & C. Wilder (Eds), 309–348. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schoorlemmer, M. 1995. Participial passives and aspect in Russian. Ph.D. Dissertation, Utrecht University. Siefring, J. (Ed.). 2005 The oxford dictionary of idioms 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Simpson, J. 1983. Resultatives. In Papers in lexical-functional grammar L. Levin, M. Rappaport & A. Zaenen (Eds), 143–156. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

 The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect Slabakova, R. 1997. Bulgarian aspect in phrase structure. Linguistics 35(4): 673–704. Smith, C. 1991. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Snyder, W. 1995. A neo-Davidsonian approach to resultatives, particles, and datives. In Proceedings of NELS 25, Vol. 1: Papers from the Main Session, J. Beckman (Ed.), 457–471. UMass, Amherst: GLSA. Stein, J., Hauck, L.C. & Su, P.Y. 1988. The random house college dictionary Revised Edition. New York: Random House, Inc. Svenonius, P. 2004. Slavic prefixes inside and outside the VP. Nordlyd [Special issue on Slavic prefixes] 32(2): 205–253. CASTL, Tromsø. Online at www.ub.uit.no/munin/nordlyd/ Svenonius, P. 2005. Extending the extension condition to discontinuous idioms. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 5: 227–263. de Swart, H. 2006. Aspectual implications of the semantics of plural indefinites. In Nondefiniteness and plurality. S. Vogeleer & L. Tasmowski (Eds), 161–190. [Linguistik Aktuell/ Linguistics Today series] Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Szucsich, L. 2002. Case licensing and nominal adverbs in Slavic. In Workshop on formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Ann Arbor meeting 2001, J. Toman (Ed.), 249–270. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Tenny, C. 1987. Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. Tenny, C. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer Tenny, C. 2000. Core events and adverbial modification. In Events as grammatical objects: The converging perspectives of lexical semantics and syntax. C. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (Eds), 284–329. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Tenny, C. & Pustejovsky, J. (Eds). 2000. Events as grammatical objects: The converging perspectives of lexical semantics and syntax. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Thompson, E. 2006. The structure of bounded events. Linguistic Inquiry 37(2): 211–228. Thráinsson, H. 1996. On the (non-)universality of functional categories. In Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in the Minimalist framework. W. Abraham, S.D. Epstein, H. Thráinsson & J-W. Zwart (Eds), 253–281. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Toman, J. (Ed.). 2002. Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Ann Arbor Meeting 2001. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Travis, L. 1991. Inner aspect and the structure of VP. Ms., McGill University. Travis, L. 2000. Event structure in syntax. In Events as grammatical objects: The converging perspectives of lexical semantics and syntax, C. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (Eds), 145–185. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Travis, L. in prep. Inner aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Online at http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/programs/ linguistics/faculty/travis/publications.htm Trevino, E. & Lena, J. (Eds). 1999. Semantic issues in romance syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tungseth, M. 2005. PP, FP and the telic/atelic distinction in Norwegian motion constructions. In Aspectual inquiries. P. Kempchinsky & R. Slabakova (Eds), 147–170. Dordrecht: Springer. Uriagereka, J. 1999. Multiple spell out. In Working minimalism S.D. Epstein & N. Hornstein (Eds), 251–282. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Vanden Wyngaerd, G. 2001. Measuring events. Language 77(1): 61–90 Vendler, Z. 1967. Verbs and times. In Linguistics in philosophy. Z. Vendler, 97–121. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.



References 

Verkuyl, H. 1972. On the compositional nature of the aspects. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Verkuyl, H. 1992. Aspectual semantics. Ms. to appear 1993, Cambridge University Press. Verkuyl, H. 1993. A theory of aspectuality. [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 64] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Verkuyl, H. 2000. Events as dividuals: an aspectual composition and event semantics. In Speaking of events, J. Higginbotham, F. Pianesi & A.C. Varzi (Eds), 169–206. New York/ Oxford: Oxford University Press. Verkuyl, H., de Swart, H. & van Hout, A. (Eds). 2005. Perspectives on aspect: Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics 32. Netherlands: Springer. Vitkova, P. 2004. The interaction of English particles, Bulgarian prefixes and telicity. Master’s thesis, University of Tromsø. Vogeleer, S. & Tasmowski, L. (Eds). 2006. Non-definiteness and plurality. [Linguistik Aktuell/ Linguistics Today series] Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wallington, A.M. (Ed.). 2003. Proceedings of the ACL workshop, the lexicon and figurative language. Sapporo, Japan. Wierzbicka, A. 1967. On the semantics of the verbal aspect in Polish. In To honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday. Vol. 3, 2231–2249. The Hague: Mouton. Zagona, K. 1996. Compositionality of aspect: evidence from Spanish aspectual se. In Aspects of romance linguistics, C. Parodi, C. Quicoli, M. Saltarelli & M.L. Zubizarreta (Eds), 475–488. Washington DC: Georgetown UP. Zagona, K. 2004. Tense construal in complement clauses: Verbs of communication and the double access reading. In The syntax of time, J.Guéron & J. Lecarme (Eds), 637–654. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Index

A Abraham, W.  139 accomplishment  1, 4–9, 12, 15–17, 20–22, 25–30, 40–41, 54, 56, 61, 62–66, 68–75, 78, 80, 88, 90, 93, 94, 97, 98, 109, 112–18, 120–23, 126–29, 132–35, 138, 141,183,199, 212, 214–15, 217, 219, 221, 222 PP-accomplishment  5, 12, 20, 33, 40, 66, 72, 76, 80, 86, 88, 98, 112, 116, 119, 133, 134, 167, 170, 193, 195–198, 200, 201, 207, 211, 217–219 standard accomplishment  4, 5, 13, 35, 40, 42, 48, 64, 66, 76, 80, 86, 88, 111, 112, 119, 121, 134, 173, 217 see also idiom achievement  1, 6–9, 12, 15–17, 20, 21, 22, 24–30, 32, 56, 62–64, 68, 72–74, 77–80, 86, 88–90, 93–95, 97–99, 102–106, 108–12, 114, 117–22, 134–36, 138, 141–43, 152–154, 159, 164, 165, 170, 179–81, 188–90, 193, 203–07, 212–14, 217, 222–25 degree-achievement  54, 85, 110 psych-achievement  17, 30, 33, 51, 193, 203–207 lexical derivational approach to  29, 78, 84, 94, 95, 103, 113, 135, 214 activity  1, 5–7, 25, 27, 28, 32, 33, 40, 46, 54, 62, 64, 66, 68–71, 74, 75, 80, 97, 107–109, 110, 112, 117, 122–124, 131, 141, 143, 144, 153, 170, 179–183, 188, 189, 212, 213, 222, 223

intransitive activity  17, 33, 67, 81 transitive activity  5, 11–13, 24, 33, 44, 49, 66, 67, 75, 140 see also idiom agent see theta role Agree  26, 27, 31, 43, 44, 60, 76, 77, 78, 80, 87, 85, 90, 100, 154, 162, 172, 176–178, 192, 205, 211, 218 Allen, K.  40 almost see event structure modifier Alsina, A.  32–34, 36, 221 ambiguous goal-location PP  32, 59, 60, 83, 162 argument structure  156, 160, 163, 171 aspectually variable predicate  183, 189, 208, 222 stative-eventive 138, 166 assertion time  68, 74 AST-T see assertion time B Babko-Malaya, O.  145, 154, 156, 157 Babyonyshev, M.  160 Baker, M.  96, 137 bare plural  6, 31, 32, 34, 45–56, 140, 144,147, 148, 167, 173, 203, 205–207, 215, 216, 218, 219 see also movement BP see bare plural Beavers, J.  188 Beck, S.  86, 148, 188, 218 Boeckx, C.  94 Borer, H.  2, 4, 10, 13–17, 31, 32, 36, 44, 57, 73, 93, 136, 137, 164, 171, 173, 177, 178, 190, 205 Borik, O.  145, 153, 157, 163

Bulgarian  2, 146, 159, 166, 167, 219 C Cappelle, B.  69, 100 Carlson, G.  35, 41, 44, 46, 54 Carrier, J.  194 case  30, 56, 111, 162, 169, 171, 172, 174, 175, 178, 202 accusative  140, 162, 171–176, 178, 202 nominative  173, 175, 202 partitive  16, 172, 176–178 causative  22, 24, 54, 111 CAUSE  21, 22, 23, 32, 54, 55, 60, 107, 111, 216 causer see event role c-command  28, 62, 63, 78, 90, 91, 94, 138, 212–215 central coincidence relation  109, 188 Chomsky, N.  63, 82, 87, 90, 94, 103, 110, 135, 137–139, 142, 162, 167, 169, 172, 178, 213, 214, 220 complexity  142, 144, 225 computational  77, 94, 139, 166, 213, 214 compounds  78, 79, 99 computation  167, 213, 214 computational efficiency  167 Comrie, B.  165 conative  30, 193, 201, 202 conflation  93, 96, 98, 99, 102, 111, 113, 114 counterfactual interpretation  64–67, 73, 76, 78, 97, 102, 104–107, 109, 118, 120, 122–125, 128, 131, 134, 143, 151, 152, 154, 164, 204 see also event structure modifier Csirmaz, A.  32, 36, 161, 221 cumulativity  36

 Index D Dahl, Ö  165 deadjectival verb  18, 110, 111–113, 135, 159 Declerck, R.  69, 100 Demirdache, H.  68, 69, 74, 160 denominal verb  93, 95, 99, 100, 102, 108, 160 location verb  19, 21, 94, 95, 97, 99, 103, 106–109, 111, 112, 135 locatum verb  19, 21, 97, 99, 103, 108, 109, 112 Depraetere, I.  1 derived subject  55, 56, 173, 175, 178, 202 determiner definite  38–40 indefinite  39, 40 Dickey, S.M.  165 directional P see directional preposition directional preposition  83, 109, 170, 186, 218 Di Sciullo, A.-M.  94, 158–160 distributive interpretation  49–51 distributive operator see distributive interpretation ditransitive  23, 133, 134 divisivity  36 do so (construction)  37, 57–59, 83, 141, 186 domain of aspectual interpretation  31, 54, 59, 60, 63, 80–84, 87–90, 140, 144, 148, 162, 174, 202, 211, 215–220, 224 Dowty, D.R.  5, 7, 8, 46, 51, 54, 57, 64, 85, 109, 117, 169, 179, 190, 191, 203, 205 durative (phrase)  4–7, 18, 19, 21, 29, 31–37, 41, 42, 46, 48–58, 72, 80, 84, 107, 109, 116, 117, 119, 123–125, 127, 130, 140, 146–148, 157, 158, 160–163, 172, 173, 179, 182–184, 186–191, 194–196, 198, 199, 201, 204–206, 208, 220, 221 Dutch  2, 139 E edge  30, 94, 135, 214 lexical edge

phase edge end-time interpretation  9, 12, 22, 26, 64, 66–68, 77, 97, 109, 140, 201 see also event structure modifier Ernst,T.  36 Erteschik-Shir, N.  18 ES see event structure ES modifier – see event structure modifier Espinal, M.T.  116 event bounded  18–21 boundedness of  1, 18, 20, 174 extended in time  6, 7, 78 delimitation of  10, 11 delimitedness of  42, 49, 62 duration (of event)  61, 163, 165, 226 measure  10, 13, 26, 32 non-delimited  1 nominal  114 punctual in time  6, 7, 78 real world  3–4, 35, 61, 206 unbounded  18, 19 unboundedness of   18 see also event structure, multiple events interpretation event role causer  10, 22, 24, 54, 55, 189, 190 initiator  10, 23, 24 event structure  1, 4, 6–8, 10, 12, 13, 15–17, 19, 20, 22, 25–27, 29–31, 60–63, 67–69, 73–78, 80, 89–91, 94, 135, 137, 154, 161, 169, 171, 178, 179, 181–83, 189, 190, 192, 204, 212, 213, 215, 217, 225 beginning  5, 27, 29, 36, 61, 64, 67, 70, 73, 74, 78, 88, 95, 152, 154, 163, 221 subevent  1, 2, 3, 28, 34, 35, 37, 41, 46, 49, 50, 61–63, 73, 74, 80, 81, 83, 86–90, 95, 140, 144, 162, 165, 202, 221 end(point)  1–5, 7, 9, 18, 27–29, 34, 35, 43, 61–66, 69, 70, 73, 74, 78, 79, 81, 84, 90, 94, 135, 152, 154, 162, 215

see also event structure modifier event structure modifier  29, 63, 64, 66, 67, 73, 76, 78, 90, 95 almost  9, 29, 63–68, 71, 73, 76–78, 97, 102, 104–107, 109, 117, 118, 120, 122–25, 128, 131, 134, 140, 143, 151, 152, 164, 182, 197, 199, 200, 204 počti  151, 152, 154, 160, 163–165 it takes x-time construction  8, 9, 12, 17, 22, 24, 26, 29, 63–66, 68, 71, 73, 76, 78, 97, 109, 140, 182, 197, 201 event time  69, 70, 74 eventive (predicate)  27, 30, 37, 63, 68, 73, 79, 80, 125, 138–144, 166, 179, 212, 213 EV-T see event time experiencer see theta role external argument  10, 22, 23, 32, 37, 41–45, 48, 49, 51, 54–57, 60, 84, 85, 86, 99, 111, 141, 193, 203, 216 F fake reflexive construction  30, 84, 199, 193, 198, 200 features event  28–30, 60–63, 73–80, 86–91, 93, 94, 98, 102, 107, 112–114, 135, 137–140, 144, 149, 153, 154, 165, 169, 171, 179, 192, 202, 207, 211–215, 217, 220, 221 event feature configuration  28, 29, 77–79, 88, 90, 93, 95, 98, 111, 114, 135, 143, 149, 154, 159–161, 212, 214, 224 interpretable  27, 60–63, 73, 90, 138, 192, 213, 215 uninterpretable 60 Filip, H.   146, 150, 155, 158, 159, 165 Finnish  169, 172, 174–178, 218 Folli, R.  23 French  46, 187, 188 G Gehrke, B.  154, 155, 157

Index  German  2, 139 Glasbey, S.R.  93, 94, 115, 116, 121, 123, 129, 132, 133 goal (preposition)  12, 26, 41–43, 57–59, 86, 100–102 109, 151, 176, 186, 187, 188, 198, 207, 219 PP  5, 6, 8, 13, 17, 19, 20, 26, 38, 41, 42, 47, 57–59, 66, 67, 83, 84, 86, 100, 102, 133, 140, 144, 148, 162, 207, 215, 216, 218–220 phrase  57, 86, 140, 151, 177, 186, 190 see also ambiguous goal-location PP Goldberg, A.  194, 195, 220 grammatical aspect  1 see also outer aspect, viewpoint aspect Grohmann, K.  94 Guéron, J.  1 Gulland, G.M.  85, 116, 119, 122, 126, 129–131 H habitual interpretation  41, 46, 50–52, 127, 131, 146 Hale, K.  18, 19, 29, 78, 82, 93–96, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 106–108, 110–114, 135, 159, 171, 188, 207, 214 Halle, M.  159 Hallman, P.  141 Harley, H.  18–21, 30, 82 Hay, J.  4, 22, 54, 55, 101, 110, 179 Heinämäki, O.  172, 177 Hinds-Howell, D.  85, 116, 119, 122, 126, 129–131 Hoekstra, T.  44, 194, 198 homogeneity  36 van Hout, A.  14, 31, 171 I ICE see idiom idiom  30, 85, 86, 93, 97, 112, 114–132, 135, 186 accomplishment idiom  114,121, 125, 126, 129,130, 132 achievement idiom 142 activity idiom  123 idiomatically combining expression  25, 93, 94, 114–116, 129–133

idiomatic phrase  93, 94, 114–16, 129, 132, 133, 135, 214 idiomatic interpretation  85, 116, 119, 121, 123, 126, 127 stative idiom  93, 116, 123, 125, 126 imperfective  1, 15, 145–147, 149, 150–155, 158–161, 163, 167, 170, 179, 183, 213 secondary imperfective  145 inalienable possession  185 inchoative  22, 24, 54, 111, 158 incompletive interpretation  64–68, 73, 77, 104, 106, 109, 118, 120, 122, 128, 140, 151, 152, 154, 160, 197, 199, 200 see also event structure modifier incorporation  18–21, 44, 96, 99, 100 incremental theme (verb)  164, 190, 192 initial lexical representation  93–95, 97, 99, 102, 111 initiation  10–12, 24, 61, 152 initiator see event role interface CI  63, 84, 86, 87, 90, 91, 94, 103, 113, 114, 135, 138, 162, 211, 213–215, 225, 226 legibility  63, 90, 91, 213, 215, 225 lexicon-syntax   94, 135 uniform mapping  138 internal argument  2–6, 13, 16, 17, 32, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44, 45, 49–51, 56, 57, 80–83, 86–89, 146–148, 162, 166, 172, 174–176, 191, 195, 196, 201, 202, 205, 206, 208, 209, 217 null 82 IP see idiom iterative interpretation see multiple events interpretation it takes x-time construction see event structure modifier Italian  2, 181 J Jackendoff, R.  33, 36, 38, 141, 189, 194, 195, 220, 221

K Kalagan  14 Kayne, R.K.  137, 138 Kennedy, C.  4, 22, 54, 55, 101, 110, 179 Keyser, S.J.  18, 19, 29, 78, 82, 93–96, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 106–108, 110–114, 135, 159, 171, 188, 207, 214 Kiparsky, P.  174, 175, 177 Klein, W.  68 Kratzer, A.  45, 171 Krifka, M.  2, 4, 16, 115 L label  75, 76, 78, 86, 89, 95, 161, 217 language variation  2, 30, 31, 110, 137–139, 166, 167, 211–213, 220 cross-linguistic variation  30, 138, 139, 144, 166, 167, 213 intra-linguistic variation 138, 139, 166, 167, 213, 221 microvariation  139 macrovariation  139 optional variation  139, 142, 166 parametric variation 137 Larson, R.K.  34 Levin, B.  4, 22, 54, 55, 100, 101, 110, 111, 171, 178, 179, 201, 204 lexical derivation  77, 90, 93, 99, 108, 159, 214 see also lexical process, operative lexicon lexical meaning  30, 51, 73, 104, 145, 164, 169, 178–184, 192, 204 lexical process  29, 78, 135, 149, 159, 160, 163, 217 see also lexical derivation, operative lexicon lexicalization (of aspect)  97, 133, 134 lexicon  30, 61, 62, 93, 94, 98, 100, 103, 107, 112, 114, 115, 129, 130, 132, 133, 135–137, 159, 160, 169, 214, 225 location preposition  101, 198, 218 PP  32, 57–60, 83 phrase  54, 58, 60 see also ambiguous goal-location PP Ludlow, P.  4

 Index M MacDonald, J.E.  37, 81, 184–186 Malagasy  2, 207 mass noun  3, 5, 6, 18, 32, 40–48, 50, 51, 55, 56, 147, 205–207, 219, 226 Marantz, A.  45, 159 Mateu, J.  94, 109, 116 McClure, W.  68, 142, 176, 181 McGinnis, M.  85, 115, 116, 121, 126, 127, 128 Megerdoomian, K.  21, 22 merge  26, 39, 59, 63, 94, 135, 138, 149, 213, 215, 218, 220 external  63, 94, 135 internal  138 middle  111 minimalism  135, 213, 214 Mittwoch, A.  8 MN see mass noun Moltmann, F.  32, 35, 36 movement  10, 13, 52–54, 96, 132, 177 bare plural   52, 53 head  96 island of  53, 219 multiple events interpretation  7, 21, 29, 31–38, 41, 45, 46, 49, 51, 52, 57, 58, 69, 70, 72, 97, 102, 107, 109, 117, 119, 121–125, 127, 130, 134, 140, 143, 146, 147, 161, 165, 184, 189, 195, 198, 204–206, 221 N narrow syntax  44, 62, 73, 75, 76, 93, 94, 98, 99, 103, 107, 111–114, 135, 149, 160, 170, 214 Newmeyer, F.  225 (neo-)constructional approach  93, 136 Nishida, C.  38, 184 nominalization  156, 160 Norwegian  59, 60 Nunberg, G.  93, 94, 11, 115, 129, 131, 133 O on/with entailment  184–188 operative lexicon  93, 135, 136

see also lexical derivation, lexical process operator variable relation  63, 90, 138, 213 OTE mapping  4–8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16–20, 22, 24–27, 29, 31, 32, 38, 40, 43, 44, 45, 60, 62, 63, 80, 84, 85, 90, 91, 137, 140, 144, 147, 148, 166, 169, 171–174, 178, 190–192, 203, 211–213, 215–221, 225, 226 outer aspect  1, 2, 3 see also grammatical aspect, viewpoint aspect P passive  56, 171, 173–175, 177, 178, 202, 207 path (of motion)  105, 184, 190, 220 see also trajectory (of motion) Pereltsvaig, A.  148, 160–162, 174, 177 perfective  1, 9, 14, 139, 145–154, 160, 161, 164, 165, 167, 226 perfective prefix  145, 149, 152 lexical prefix  147, 149, 155–160, 163–165, 213 superlexical prefix  30, 81, 146, 147, 149, 154–164, 213 phase  29, 30, 63, 84–86, 94, 113, 135, 162, 214, 215 vP phase  29, 63, 86, 113, 162 phase verb  149, 150, 154, 155, 159, 160, 165, 166 počti see event structure modifier pragmatics  68, 193, 209 prefix see perfective prefix progressive  1, 2, 117, 119, 120, 122, 127, 130, 180, 181, 183 progressive-to-perfect entailment  117, 119, 120, 122, 130, 180, 181, 183 Pustejovsky, J.  1, 3, 46, 57, 61, 62, 73 Pylkkänen, M.  220 Q quantification  54, 219 quantifier  51, 54 quantizedness  16 quantized  14, 25

R Ramchand  6, 14, 15, 21, 23–25, 31, 32, 45, 52, 61, 145, 148, 154, 155, 171, 190, 226 Randall, J.H.  194 Rapoport, T.  18 Rapp, I.  64, 111 Rappaport Hovav, M.  111 Rassudova, O.P. 152 Reinhart, T.  93, 135 relative clause  39 result(ant) state  23, 61, 72, 74, 117, 124, 194 resultative  30, 193–197, 201, 211, 217, 219, 220 Richards, N.  130 Ritter, E.  10–13, 21, 33, 46, 61, 93, 136, 164, 171, 172, 178, 198 Roeper, T.  94 Romanian  186, 187 root  18, 19–21, 157, 218 Rosen, S.  10–13, 21, 33, 46, 61, 93, 136, 164, 171, 172, 178, 198 Rothstein, S.  3, 4, 8, 137, 142 Russian  2, 9, 30, 31, 33, 34, 40, 62, 77, 81, 137–39, 144–149, 151–154, 158, 160–162, 164–166, 170, 179, 183, 184, 213, 219–221 S Sanz, M.  10, 184 Schmitt, C.J.  33, 39, 172, 176 Schoorlemmer, M.  145, 146, 149, 150, 153, 154 secondary predicate  10 selectional relation  44 semelfactive  20, 27, 32 sequence of identical events interpretation 41, 42, 44, 49, 55, 72, 84, 146, 188, 204–206 sequence of similar events interpretation  45–56, 60, 140, 144, 147, 148, 167, 173, 174, 203, 205–207, 215, 216, 218, 219 SIE interpretation see sequence of identical events interpretation

Index  Siefring, J.  85, 126, 129, 132 Siloni, T.  93, 135 Simpson, J.  194 single event interpretation  6, 21, 32, 35, 36, 41, 80, 84, 107, 109, 117–119, 121–124, 127, 128, 130, 131, 165, 188, 189, 191, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 221 Slabakova, R.  2, 145, 146, 158, 159, 166, 167, 219 Slavic (languages)  40, 145, 154, 155, 165, 166 Smith, C.  1, 3, 19, 27, 61, 145, 147, 149, 152, 154 Snyder, W.  86, 148, 160, 188, 218 source preposition  100, 101 Spanish  2, 33, 38, 181, 183–185, 187 specified quantity  16 SSE interpretation see sequence of similar events interpretation start-time interpretation  9, 12, 22, 26, 64, 66, 67, 73, 77, 78, 97, 102, 107, 109, 179, 180, 182 see also event structure modifier stative  1, 12, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 62, 64, 67, 68–71, 74, 75, 79, 83, 93, 116, 123, 125, 126, 132, 138–144, 165, 166, 171, 173–175, 179, 212, 213, 216, 219, 220, 222–225 see also idiom Stechow, A. von  64 Stein, J.  126 stop-control construction  6, 8, 21, 78, 97, 102, 107, 109, 118–125, 128, 131, 134, 143, 189, 199, 200, 204 Svenonius, P.  85, 145, 146, 154–158 de Swart, H.  46 Szucsich, L.  146, 148, 161, 162

T telos  23 see also event structure Tenny, C.  1, 3, 5, 10, 32, 33, 36, 42, 46, 49, 61, 62, 65, 198, 214, 222 tense  1, 15, 29, 63, 68–70, 72–75, 79, 99, 153, 159, 226 future simple  68–72, 74, 75, past simple  15, 69, 72, 74, 226 periphrastic future  149, 150, 154, 155, 159 tense entailment  68, 69, 72–75, 153, 159 terminal coincidence relation  109, 188 thematic relation  30, 169, 178, 188–190, 192 theta role agent  17, 37, 188–190, 203, 207 experiencer 17, 51, 188–191, 203, 204, 207 patient  14–169, 188–190 patient/theme  188 proto-patient  169, 190 recipient  191 theme  26, 164, 188–190, 192 theme/stimulus  188–190 stimulus  188–190 Thompson, E.  6 Thráinsson, H.  137 time span (adverbial)  5, 8, 18, 36, 40, 42, 43, 46, 48–50, 53–59, 64, 76, 84, 123, 128, 146–148, 157, 158, 160–163, 179, 180–182, 191, 208 trajectory (of motion)  100, 101, 104, 105 see also path (of motion) Transfer  63, 84, 86, 87, 94, 113, 114, 135, 162, 215 Travis, L.  1, 2, 8, 14, 21, 25, 26, 31, 36, 37, 207 Tungseth, M.  59, 60

U unaccusative verb  12, 55, 56, 171–175, 177, 178, 207 unergative verb  56, 82, 83, 106, 107, 108 uniform mapping see interface universal property  3, 30, 62, 63, 90, 91, 137, 138, 213 Uriagereka, J.  94 Uribe-Etxebarria, M.  68, 69, 74, 160 UT-T see utterance time utterance time  69, 70, 72, 74, 75, 152, 154 V Vanden Wyngaerd, G.  33, 127 variable interpretation  35, 41 Vendler, Z.  8, 18, 25, 27 verb of inherently directed motion  30, 94, 97, 100–106, 163 goal-oriented  100–102, 104 source-oriented 101–103 Verkuyl, H.  2, 4, 15, 16, 33, 45 VIDM see verb of inherently directed motion viewpoint aspect  1, 61 see also grammatical aspect, outer aspect visbility semantic  103 syntactic  90, 99 Vitkova, P.  146 W way construction  84, 193, 198, 199, 200 WH-word  56 Wierzbicka, A.  147, 148 Z Zagona, K.  3, 184

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers’ website, www.benjamins.com 140 Roehrs, Dorian: Demonstratives and Definite Articles as Nominal Auxiliaries. ca. 220 pp. Expected March 2009 139 Hicks, Glyn: The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations. xii, 306 pp. + index. Expected February 2009 138 Siddiqi, Daniel: Syntax within the Word. Economy, allomorphy, and argument selection in distributed morphology. xii, 136 pp. + index. Expected February 2009 137 Pfau, Roland: Grammar as Processor. A Distributed Morphology account of spontaneous speech errors. 2009. xiii, 372 pp. 136 Kandybowicz, Jason: The Grammar of Repetition. Nupe grammar at the syntax–phonology interface. 2008. xiii, 168 pp. 135 Lewis, William D., Simin Karimi, Heidi Harley and Scott O. Farrar (eds.): Time and Again. Theoretical Perspectives on Formal Linguistics. In honor of D. Terrence Langendoen. 2008. xiv, 261 pp. + index. 134 Armon-Lotem, Sharon, Gabi Danon and Susan Rothstein (eds.): Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics. 2008. vi, 388 pp. + index. 133 MacDonald, Jonathan E.: The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect. A minimalist perspective. xv, 241 pp. 2008. 132 Biberauer, Theresa (ed.): The Limits of Syntactic Variation. 2008. vii, 521 pp. 131 De Cat, Cécile and Katherine Demuth (eds.): The Bantu–Romance Connection. A comparative investigation of verbal agreement, DPs, and information structure. 2008. xix, 355 pp. 130 Kallulli, Dalina and Liliane Tasmowski (eds.): Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages. 2008. ix, 442 pp. 129 Sturgeon, Anne: The Left Periphery. The interaction of syntax, pragmatics and prosody in Czech. xi, 143 pp. 128 Taleghani, Azita H.: Modality, Aspect and Negation in Persian. 2008. ix, 183 pp. 127 Durrleman-Tame, Stephanie: The Syntax of Jamaican Creole. A cartographic perspective. 2008. xii, 190 pp. 126 Schäfer, Florian: The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives. External arguments in change-of-state contexts. 2008. xi, 324 pp. 125 Rothstein, Björn: The Perfect Time Span. On the present perfect in German, Swedish and English. 2008. xi, 171 pp. 124 Ihsane, Tabea: The Layered DP. Form and meaning of French indefinites. 2008. ix, 260 pp. 123 Stoyanova, Marina: Unique Focus. Languages without multiple wh-questions. 2008. xi, 184 pp. 122 Oosterhof, Albert: The Semantics of Generics in Dutch and Related Languages. 2008. xviii, 286 pp. 121 Tungseth, Mai Ellin: Verbal Prepositions and Argument Structure. Path, place and possession in Norwegian. 2008. ix, 187 pp. 120 Asbury, Anna, Jakub Dotlačil, Berit Gehrke and Rick Nouwen (eds.): Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P. 2008. vi, 416 pp. 119 Fortuny, Jordi: The Emergence of Order in Syntax. 2008. viii, 211 pp. 118 Jäger, Agnes: History of German Negation. 2008. ix, 350 pp. 117 Haugen, Jason D.: Morphology at the Interfaces. Reduplication and Noun Incorporation in Uto-Aztecan. 2008. xv, 257 pp. 116 Endo, Yoshio: Locality and Information Structure. A cartographic approach to Japanese. 2007. x, 235 pp. 115 Putnam, Michael T.: Scrambling and the Survive Principle. 2007. x, 216 pp. 114 Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera: Beyond Coherence. The syntax of opacity in German. 2007. viii, 206 pp. 113 Eythórsson, Thórhallur (ed.): Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory. The Rosendal papers. 2008. vi, 441 pp. 112 Axel, Katrin: Studies on Old High German Syntax. Left sentence periphery, verb placement and verbsecond. 2007. xii, 364 pp. 111 Eguren, Luis and Olga Fernández Soriano (eds.): Coreference, Modality, and Focus. Studies on the syntax–semantics interface. 2007. xii, 239 pp.

110 Rothstein, Susan (ed.): Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect. 2008. viii, 453 pp. 109 Chocano, Gema: Narrow Syntax and Phonological Form. Scrambling in the Germanic languages. 2007. x, 333 pp. 108 Reuland, Eric, Tanmoy Bhattacharya and Giorgos Spathas (eds.): Argument Structure. 2007. xviii, 243 pp. 107 Corver, Norbert and Jairo Nunes (eds.): The Copy Theory of Movement. 2007. vi, 388 pp. 106 Dehé, Nicole and Yordanka Kavalova (eds.): Parentheticals. 2007. xii, 314 pp. 105 Haumann, Dagmar: Adverb Licensing and Clause Structure in English. 2007. ix, 438 pp. 104 Jeong, Youngmi: Applicatives. Structure and interpretation from a minimalist perspective. 2007. vii, 144 pp. 103 Wurff, Wim van der (ed.): Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar. Studies in honour of Frits Beukema. 2007. viii, 352 pp. 102 Bayer, Josef, Tanmoy Bhattacharya and M.T. Hany Babu (eds.): Linguistic Theory and South Asian Languages. Essays in honour of K. A. Jayaseelan. 2007. x, 282 pp. 101 Karimi, Simin, Vida Samiian and Wendy K. Wilkins (eds.): Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Syntactic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds. 2007. vi, 424 pp. 100 Schwabe, Kerstin and Susanne Winkler (eds.): On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Generalizations across languages. 2007. vii, 570 pp. 99 Martínez-Gil, Fernando and Sonia Colina (eds.): Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. 2007. viii, 564 pp. 98 Pires, Acrisio: The Minimalist Syntax of Defective Domains. Gerunds and infinitives. 2006. xiv, 188 pp. 97 Hartmann, Jutta M. and László Molnárfi (eds.): Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax. From Afrikaans to Zurich German. 2006. vi, 332 pp. 96 Lyngfelt, Benjamin and Torgrim Solstad (eds.): Demoting the Agent. Passive, middle and other voice phenomena. 2006. x, 333 pp. 95 Vogeleer, Svetlana and Liliane Tasmowski (eds.): Non-definiteness and Plurality. 2006. vi, 358 pp. 94 Arche, María J.: Individuals in Time. Tense, aspect and the individual/stage distinction. 2006. xiv, 281 pp. 93 Progovac, Ljiljana, Kate Paesani, Eugenia Casielles and Ellen Barton (eds.): The Syntax of Nonsententials. Multidisciplinary perspectives. 2006. x, 372 pp. 92 Boeckx, Cedric (ed.): Agreement Systems. 2006. ix, 346 pp. 91 Boeckx, Cedric (ed.): Minimalist Essays. 2006. xvi, 399 pp. 90 Dalmi, Gréte: The Role of Agreement in Non-Finite Predication. 2005. xvi, 222 pp. 89 Velde, John R. te: Deriving Coordinate Symmetries. A phase-based approach integrating Select, Merge, Copy and Match. 2006. x, 385 pp. 88 Mohr, Sabine: Clausal Architecture and Subject Positions. Impersonal constructions in the Germanic languages. 2005. viii, 207 pp. 87 Julien, Marit: Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective. 2005. xvi, 348 pp. 86 Costa, João and Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva (eds.): Studies on Agreement. 2006. vi, 285 pp. 85 Mikkelsen, Line: Copular Clauses. Specification, predication and equation. 2005. viii, 210 pp. 84 Pafel, Jürgen: Quantifier Scope in German. 2006. xvi, 312 pp. 83 Schweikert, Walter: The Order of Prepositional Phrases in the Structure of the Clause. 2005. xii, 338 pp. 82 Quinn, Heidi: The Distribution of Pronoun Case Forms in English. 2005. xii, 409 pp. 81 FuSS, Eric: The Rise of Agreement. A formal approach to the syntax and grammaticalization of verbal inflection. 2005. xii, 336 pp. 80 Burkhardt, Petra: The Syntax–Discourse Interface. Representing and interpreting dependency. 2005. xii, 259 pp. 79 Schmid, Tanja: Infinitival Syntax. Infinitivus Pro Participio as a repair strategy. 2005. xiv, 251 pp. 78 Dikken, Marcel den and Christina Tortora (eds.): The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories. 2005. vii, 292 pp. 77 Öztürk, Balkız: Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. 2005. x, 268 pp. 76 Stavrou, Melita and Arhonto Terzi (eds.): Advances in Greek Generative Syntax. In honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou. 2005. viii, 366 pp.

75 Di Sciullo, Anna Maria (ed.): UG and External Systems. Language, brain and computation. 2005. xviii, 398 pp. 74 Heggie, Lorie and Francisco Ordóñez (eds.): Clitic and Affix Combinations. Theoretical perspectives. 2005. viii, 390 pp. 73 Carnie, Andrew, Heidi Harley and Sheila Ann Dooley (eds.): Verb First. On the syntax of verbinitial languages. 2005. xiv, 434 pp. 72 FuSS, Eric and Carola Trips (eds.): Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar. 2004. viii, 228 pp. 71 Gelderen, Elly van: Grammaticalization as Economy. 2004. xvi, 320 pp. 70 Austin, Jennifer R., Stefan Engelberg and Gisa Rauh (eds.): Adverbials. The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure. 2004. x, 346 pp. 69 Kiss, Katalin É. and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.): Verb Clusters. A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch. 2004. vi, 514 pp. 68 Breul, Carsten: Focus Structure in Generative Grammar. An integrated syntactic, semantic and intonational approach. 2004. x, 432 pp. 67 Mišeska Tomić, Olga (ed.): Balkan Syntax and Semantics. 2004. xvi, 499 pp. 66 Grohmann, Kleanthes K.: Prolific Domains. On the Anti-Locality of movement dependencies. 2003. xvi, 372 pp. 65 Manninen, Satu Helena: Small Phrase Layers. A study of Finnish Manner Adverbials. 2003. xii, 275 pp. 64 Boeckx, Cedric and Kleanthes K. Grohmann (eds.): Multiple Wh-Fronting. 2003. x, 292 pp. 63 Boeckx, Cedric: Islands and Chains. Resumption as stranding. 2003. xii, 224 pp. 62 Carnie, Andrew, Heidi Harley and MaryAnn Willie (eds.): Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar. In honor of Eloise Jelinek. 2003. xii, 378 pp. 61 Schwabe, Kerstin and Susanne Winkler (eds.): The Interfaces. Deriving and interpreting omitted structures. 2003. vi, 403 pp. 60 Trips, Carola: From OV to VO in Early Middle English. 2002. xiv, 359 pp. 59 Dehé, Nicole: Particle Verbs in English. Syntax, information structure and intonation. 2002. xii, 305 pp. 58 Di Sciullo, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 2: Morphology, phonology, acquisition. 2003. vi, 309 pp. 57 Di Sciullo, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 1: Syntax and semantics. 2003. vi, 405 pp. 56 Coene, Martine and Yves D’hulst (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 2: The expression of possession in noun phrases. 2003. x, 295 pp. 55 Coene, Martine and Yves D’hulst (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 1: The syntax and semantics of noun phrases. 2003. vi, 362 pp. 54 Baptista, Marlyse: The Syntax of Cape Verdean Creole. The Sotavento varieties. 2003. xxii, 294 pp.  (incl. CD-rom). 53 Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter and Werner Abraham (eds.): Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax (Groningen, May 26–27, 2000). 2002. xiv, 407 pp. 52 Simon, Horst J. and Heike Wiese (eds.): Pronouns – Grammar and Representation. 2002. xii, 294 pp. 51 Gerlach, Birgit: Clitics between Syntax and Lexicon. 2002. xii, 282 pp. 50 Steinbach, Markus: Middle Voice. A comparative study in the syntax-semantics interface of German. 2002. xii, 340 pp. 49 Alexiadou, Artemis (ed.): Theoretical Approaches to Universals. 2002. viii, 319 pp. 48 Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Sjef Barbiers and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds.): Dimensions of Movement. From features to remnants. 2002. vi, 345 pp. 47 Barbiers, Sjef, Frits Beukema and Wim van der Wurff (eds.): Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System. 2002. x, 290 pp. 46 Panagiotidis, E. Phoevos: Pronouns, Clitics and Empty Nouns. ‘Pronominality’ and licensing in syntax. 2002. x, 214 pp. 45 Abraham, Werner and C. Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds.): Issues in Formal German(ic) Typology. 2002. xviii, 336 pp. 44 Taylan, Eser Erguvanlı (ed.): The Verb in Turkish. 2002. xviii, 267 pp. 43 Featherston, Sam: Empty Categories in Sentence Processing. 2001. xvi, 279 pp.

42 Alexiadou, Artemis: Functional Structure in Nominals. Nominalization and ergativity. 2001. x, 233 pp. 41 Zeller, Jochen: Particle Verbs and Local Domains. 2001. xii, 325 pp. 40 Hoeksema, Jack, Hotze Rullmann, Víctor Sánchez-Valencia and Ton van der Wouden (eds.): Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items. 2001. xii, 368 pp. 39 Gelderen, Elly van: A History of English Reflexive Pronouns. Person, Self, and Interpretability. 2000. xiv, 279 pp. 38 Meinunger, André: Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. 2000. xii, 247 pp. 37 Lutz, Uli, Gereon Müller and Arnim von Stechow (eds.): Wh-Scope Marking. 2000. vi, 483 pp. 36 Gerlach, Birgit and Janet Grijzenhout (eds.): Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax. 2001. xii, 441 pp. 35 Hróarsdóttir, Thorbjörg: Word Order Change in Icelandic. From OV to VO. 2001. xiv, 385 pp. 34 Reuland, Eric (ed.): Arguments and Case. Explaining Burzio’s Generalization. 2000. xii, 255 pp. 33 Puskás, Genoveva: Word Order in Hungarian. The syntax of Ā-positions. 2000. xvi, 398 pp. 32 Alexiadou, Artemis, Paul Law, André Meinunger and Chris Wilder (eds.): The Syntax of Relative Clauses. 2000. vi, 397 pp. 31 Svenonius, Peter (ed.): The Derivation of VO and OV. 2000. vi, 372 pp. 30 Beukema, Frits and Marcel den Dikken (eds.): Clitic Phenomena in European Languages. 2000. x, 324 pp. 29 Miyamoto, Tadao: The Light Verb Construction in Japanese. The role of the verbal noun. 2000. xiv, 232 pp. 28 Hermans, Ben and Marc van Oostendorp (eds.): The Derivational Residue in Phonological Optimality Theory. 2000. viii, 322 pp. 27 Růžička, Rudolf: Control in Grammar and Pragmatics. A cross-linguistic study. 1999. x, 206 pp. 26 Ackema, Peter: Issues in Morphosyntax. 1999. viii, 310 pp. 25 Felser, Claudia: Verbal Complement Clauses. A minimalist study of direct perception constructions. 1999. xiv, 278 pp. 24 Rebuschi, Georges and Laurice Tuller (eds.): The Grammar of Focus. 1999. vi, 366 pp. 23 Giannakidou, Anastasia: Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. 1998. xvi, 282 pp. 22 Alexiadou, Artemis and Chris Wilder (eds.): Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. 1998. vi, 388 pp. 21 Klein, Henny: Adverbs of Degree in Dutch and Related Languages. 1998. x, 232 pp. 20 Laenzlinger, Christopher: Comparative Studies in Word Order Variation. Adverbs, pronouns, and clause structure in Romance and Germanic. 1998. x, 371 pp. 19 Josefsson, Gunlög: Minimal Words in a Minimal Syntax. Word formation in Swedish. 1998. ix, 199 pp. 18 Alexiadou, Artemis: Adverb Placement. A case study in antisymmetric syntax. 1997. x, 256 pp. 17 Beermann, Dorothee, David LeBlanc and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.): Rightward Movement. 1997. vi, 410 pp. 16 Liu, Feng-hsi: Scope and Specificity. 1997. viii, 187 pp. 15 Rohrbacher, Bernhard Wolfgang: Morphology-Driven Syntax. A theory of V to I raising and prodrop. 1999. viii, 296 pp. 14 Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Henk van Riemsdijk and Frans Zwarts (eds.): Materials on Left Dislocation. 1997. viii, 349 pp. 13 Alexiadou, Artemis and T. Alan Hall (eds.): Studies on Universal Grammar and Typological Variation. 1997. viii, 252 pp. 12 Abraham, Werner, Samuel David Epstein, Höskuldur Thráinsson and C. Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds.): Minimal Ideas. Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework. 1996. xii, 364 pp. 11 Lutz, Uli and Jürgen Pafel (eds.): On Extraction and Extraposition in German. 1996. xii, 315 pp. 10 Cinque, Guglielmo and Giuliana Giusti (eds.): Advances in Roumanian Linguistics. 1995. xi, 172 pp. 9 Gelderen, Elly van: The Rise of Functional Categories. 1993. x, 224 pp. 8 Fanselow, Gisbert (ed.): The Parametrization of Universal Grammar. 1993. xvii, 232 pp. 7 Åfarlí, Tor A.: The Syntax of Norwegian Passive Constructions. 1992. xii, 177 pp. 6 Bhatt, Christa, Elisabeth Löbel and Claudia Maria Schmidt (eds.): Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena in Noun Phrases and Sentences. 1989. ix, 187 pp.

5 4 3 2 1

Grewendorf, Günther and Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.): Scrambling and Barriers. 1990. vi, 442 pp. Abraham, Werner and Sjaak De Meij (eds.): Topic, Focus and Configurationality. Papers from the 6th Groningen Grammar Talks, Groningen, 1984. 1986. v, 349 pp. Abraham, Werner (ed.): On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania. Papers from the 3rd Groningen Grammar Talks (3e Groninger Grammatikgespräche), Groningen, January 1981. 1983. vi, 242 pp. Ehlich, Konrad and Jürgen Rehbein: Augenkommunikation. Methodenreflexion und Beispielanalyse. 1982. viii, 150 pp. With many photographic ills. Klappenbach, Ruth (1911–1977): Studien zur Modernen Deutschen Lexikographie. Auswahl aus den Lexikographischen Arbeiten von Ruth Klappenbach, erweitert um drei Beiträge von Helene MaligeKlappenbach. (Written in German). 1980. xxiii, 313 pp.