Cambridge Books Online

Cambridge Books Online
http://ebooks.cambridge.org/
A Theory of Aspectuality
The Interaction between Temporal and Atemporal Structure
Henk J. Verkuyl
Book DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597848
Online ISBN: 9780511597848
Hardback ISBN: 9780521443623
Paperback ISBN: 9780521564526
Chapter
Conclusion to Part III pp. 350-356
Chapter DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597848.021
Cambridge University Press

350 Temporal structure
CONCLUSION TO PART III
In chapter 1, the descriptive goal of the present study was to account formally
for a number of sentences. In chapter 7 a grammar, called PLUG, was developed
which accounted for the contribution of the atemporal NPs to the constraal of
terminative aspectuality. In chapter 13, an extension has been made resulting
in a grammar which is called PLUG+. This grammar has been developed on the
basis of the grammar PLUG, proposed by Verkuyl and Van der Does (1991).
PLUG* is a temporal extension of the atemporal PLUG. Its rules were discussed
in chapter 13, but they are given now in the form of rules forming Phrase
Structure and rules for Tense and Progressive Form. Perhaps a more general
X-bar format could have been chosen, including rules for modification, but as
this does not bear on the heart of the aspectual matter this has not been done.
PLUG +
PHRASE STRUCTURE RULES:
<= NP: [NP]|, VP:

fVP:AX.[V,I(X)
2.\
(_VP:AX.[NP'l(AiAY.[V 2 KI)(i)(Y)(X)) <= V 2 : [V 2 ]],NP': [NP'
3.NP':|[ei(INP]) <= ©: [ 0 ] , NP: [NPJ
4.NP:IDET2KI[N]1) «= DET2 : [DET2 J, N: [N]
5. DET 2 : |SPEC] ( [DET' J) «= SPEC : [SPECJ , DET' : [DET' ]
TENSE AND PROG:

1. S': [iNFLJdSD <= INFL : [INFL] , S : [SJ
2. S : [PROG]|(|[S]) <= PROG : [PROGJ , S : [SI
+
3. [INFLJ = A.S3I3IR[S(I)Al=Ent (IR)ATensea(IR)(i*)]
4. [PROG] = A S A J 3 J [ S ( J ) A J ' C J ]
5. [INFL^I = XS3I VI[Ie /-^3IR[S(I)Al=Ent+(IR)ATensea(IR)(i*)]]
0 -interpretation:
[0J = A.NP^,W3/?[NP(/?)AUIW=/?]
[0£J = U
[0 C 1 =
Downloaded from Cambridge Books Online by IP 157.181.88.58 on Tue Mar 15 09:23:48 GMT 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597848.021
Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2016
Conclusion to Part III 351
SPEC
[the]] = XDmP.[D(XnC)(IthingJ)A3CpsXnC [Q=P\XrC]]
[0] = XDWOP.3W[WcXAD(X)(W)A3fipsW[e=Plx]]
DET1
|[SG]1 = XXXY.IXnYNl
EPLJ = WOY.IXnYIM
InJ = m.Y.IXnYI=n
[mostj = m,Y.IXnYI> 1/2*1X1
[several]] = m.Y.IXnYI>2
[INCJ = XXX,Y.IXnY1=0
V V
v,,v 2
[V0]] = Mm.i.|[V 0 J(I)(i)(X) unergative scheme
= XlAiA,Y.|[V0](I)(i)(Y) unaccusative scheme
= XlXXAiA,Y.|[V0](I)(i)(Y)(X) transitive scheme
PLUG+ makes it possible to fulfil the promise made in chapter 1. The sentences
discussed there are now given, together with their formal representations. All
of them have been treated in Part HI and this will be indicated by their number-
ing. The sentences and their descriptions are:
(47) Judith ate a sandwich
(387) 3I3IR3!V[V=Pudith]]n{jj}A3W[Wc|[sandwich]]AlWI=l
A3epsW[e=U ie ,{Un|[sandwich]|: Ieatl(I)(i)(UXV)}]]
Al=Ent+(IR)ATense<(IR)(i*)]
(48) Judith ate sandwiches
(388) 3I3lR3!V[V=PudithJn{ji}A3W3/>[WcUPcIsandwichlAl/>l>l
A3j2psW[e=UieI{Un|[sandwichl:[eat]l(I)(i)(U)(V)}]]
(51) John walked to three stores
(389) 3HIR3!V[V=IJohn]n{ji}A3W[WcIstore]|AlWI=3
A3GpsW[e=UieI{Un|[store]I:Ewalklo]l(I)(i)(U)(V)}]]
(251) Jan liep naar de winkel
John walked to(wards) the store
(390) 3I3IR3!V[V=|[JohnBn{jj}A3!WtWc|[storejAlWI=l
A3GpsW[e=U teI {UnIstorel:Iwalk loWildl l(IXi)(UXV)}]]
(280) Judith was eating three sandwiches

(391) 3I3IR3J3!V[V=[Judith]ln{ji}A3W[Wc|[sandwich]lAlWI=3
A3GpsW[(2=Uie,{Un|[sandwichl: [eat](J)(i)(U)(V)}]]
AlcJAl=Ent+(IR)ATense<(IR)(i*)]
(49) Judith ate three sandwiches
(392) 3I3IR3!V[V=|[Judith]]n{ji}A3W[Wc|[sandwich]lAlWI=3
A3£psW[(2=U ie ,{Unlsandwich]: fleat2(I)(i)(U)(V)}]]
(306) John pushed the cart
(393) 3I3IR3!V[V=PohnJn{ji}A3!W[Wc|[cart]|AlWI=l
A3GpsW[g3UieI{Un|[cartJ|:|[push]|(I)(i)(U)(V)}]]
(314) John pushed three carts away
(394) 3I3I R 3! V[V=|[John]]n {j;} A 3 ! W[Wc|[cart]| AIWI=3
A3<2psW[e=UieI{Un|[cart]l: Ipush away]|(I)(i)(U)(V)}]]
(98) Two girls ate three sandwiches
(395) 3EIR3Z[Zc|[girl]|AlZI=2
A3PpsZ[AT(Vn|[girl]l):3W[Wcl[sandwichlAlWI=3
A3GpsW[Q=UieI{Un|[sandwichI:|[eatKI)(i)(U)(V)}]]]
(162) Judith ate bread
(396) 3I3IR3!V[V=IJudithIn{ji}A3W3P[WcUPcm|[bread]]
A3(2psW[e=UieI{Unm|[bread]l:|[eatKI)(iXU)(V)}]]
(339) Judith ate
(397) 3I3IR3!V[V=|[Judith]|n{ji}A|[eatKI)(i)(V)]
(294) Judith ate (=used to eat) three sandwiches (at breakfast)
(398) 3/VI[Ie /-^3IR3W[Wc|[sandwich]|AlWI=3
A3epsWtG=Uiei{UnEsandwichI:|[eat3(I)(i)(U)(V)}]]
(374) Judith hated three yuppies
(399) 3I3IR3!V[V=|[JudithIn{ji}A3W[Wc|[yuppy]AlWI=3
A3QpsW[O=UI{Un|[yuppy]|:EhateKIX0)(U)(V)}]]
Conclusion to Part III 353
The difference between PLUG+ and PLUG can be measured by comparing the
representations of some of the sentences in this list with their counterparts at
the close of Part II. The representations of the sentences in (387)-(399) now
explain the terminativity of some of the sentences (47), (49), (51), (314) and
(98), and the durativity of the others.
As argued in chapters 6-8, terminative behaviour is obtained straight-
forwardly on the basis of the presence of cardinality information on the sets V
and W in the formulas, as well as on the basis of the appropriate thematic infor-
mation I©]| = . The former information is present in the form of the expressions
like IWI r n, where re {<, <, >, >, =} and where n is a certain numerical value,
either known to speaker and/or hearer, or not. The thematic information is
made visible in the expression 3QpsW[Q R ...], where Re {=, a, 3} and
where ... stands for information conveyed by the predicate. This has been
discussed extensively from chapter 13.3 till the end of Part III. As the predi-
cates of (47), (49), (51), (314), and (98) are all partitioned by =, the sentences
are terminative.
The durative aspect of the sentences is of a diverse nature:
In (388), it is due to the presence of the bare plural information which

makes it impossible to 'see' the cardinality of W, as explained in
detail in chapter 8.2 and chapter 13.7.
In (390), the durative aspect is due to the fact that the thematic role of
the preposition naar (towards) is defined as |[©]]_. This was for-
mally analysed in chapter 13.4.
In (391), the Progressive Form requires that there be only a proper
subinterval whose actualization can be supported by the truth con-
ditions of the Past tense. This has been discussed in chapter 13.8.
So the function W cannot exhaust the partition.
In (393), the lexical definition of the verb push requires IQJ which
leaves the partitioning of the internal argument NP indeterminate.
In (396), it is the measure function which cannot find the proper
domain on which it has to apply, as pointed out in chapter 8.3 and
chapter 13.7.
In (397), the stem-insertion strategy yields an intransitive verb. Due
to the fact that there is no internal argument Y the i is unbounded.
On the reduction-strategy, however, the implicit argument should
be defined as bare, either directly or by a meaning postulate on
verbs occurring with an overt internal argument, whose relevant
part is represented as
3W3P[WcUPcEdibleAlPI>lA3epsW[Q=U ieI {UnEdible:

IeatJ(IXiXU)(V)}]]
In both cases, the result is durative.

In (398), there is no terminative aspect due to the fact that the habitual tense
does not introduce or identify [+SQA]-information at the right level. This means
that the information is below the level at which the tense operates.
In (399), it is the [-ADD To]-verb hate which is lexically defined as having a
zero-index, so that no progress can be expressed by the verb.
Recall from chapter 7.6 that durative aspectuality is also caused by negation:
the negation sign -% cancels the possibility for the verb to have a mapping
between its index and the internal argument NP-denotation, as, for example, in
Judith did not eat three sandwiches. This sentence would be represented in
PLUG+ as in (400).
(400) 3I3I R 3! V[V=Pudith]]n{ jj} A-,3W[Wc|[sandwich]]AlWI=3

A3(2psW[e=Uiel{Un|[sandwich]l:|[eat]iaXi)(U)(V)}]]
The negation rules out the possibility for I to have been the set of indices dur-
ing which it is true that Judith ate three sandwiches. Note that (400) does not
exclude the existence of Judith (in fact, it is required), and that it does not
exclude either that she might have eaten two sandwiches or different things.
This appears to be empirically correct. The principles involved in the making
of durative aspectuality hold as well as for other forms of negation discussed in
chapter 7.6. It seems to me that there is some structure in the durative 'garbage
can': there is no way to process the IWI-information temporally at the proper
level.
Two ingredients of the NP-analysis are crucial to the present aspectual theory:
(a) the treatment of NPs at the level of <«e,r>,t>,r>; and (b) the notion of par-
tition. Both were discussed in chapter 7 and in chapter 13. The «<e,t>,t>,t>-
analysis of NPs leads to the discrimination of a set with respect to which refer-
ential and quantiflcational information expressed by the NP is organized.
Information about definiteness and indefiniteness — here interpreted as
uniquely identified vs. introduced - identifies or introduces a set.
Subsequently, information about the cardinality of this set is given: if it is pre-
sent in some form, explicitly given or implicitly, then there is a cardinality
statement and this is exactly where the [+SQA]-notion can be tied up. Next to
Conclusion to Part HI 355
these two information units, which are structurally present in the syntax of the
NP as argued for in chapter 7, there is room for structured information about
the arguments to which the NP being a function applies. Rather than being of
the form XP3 !W[.. .P(W)] or of the form XP3W[ .. .P(W)], an array of struc-
turings of W is put as a constraint on the semantic objects which are the values
for P. In other words, the structural scheme .. 3QpsW[Q=PL^] is used to pre-
pare the NP for its interaction with the verb. In this way, the representation
captures the aspectual asymmetry argued for in chapter 1. This is because the
structure of the representation is such that the information from the VP is
embedded in the NP-information of the subject. It can be seen easily with the
help of (398) when reduced to: 3V[...A3SpsV[S={Vn|[N]|: 3W[... ]}]. The
VP-part starts with 3W, but note that 3W is completely dependent on the set V.
That is, if there are two sets V, each of them will have a W for which the predi-
cation holds.
It is somewhat ironical that the price for introducing machinery for dealing
with complex cases complicates the simple issues. Singular proper names or
singular definites or indefinites are treated as singletons, but these are hardly of
interest for the concept of a partition. As pointed out, it is possible to simplify
the partitioned representations if they apply to singletons, but in my view the
issue is not empirically important at all. So Judith is analysed in terms of a
choice from a set of persons bearing the name Judith. In this connection it is
perhaps necessary to point out that sentences like (49) can be used very well in
situations in which people do not know the Judith of (49), say at the beginning
of a sort of conference when people are having their first lunch. The sentence
may be used, for example, by the administrator as a conclusion from the infor-
mation filled out on a form by Judith. However, after a second person called
Judith is identified as a member of the group, the administrator will be forced
to ask Which Judith? or Judith who? This is the reason why I prefer to give
proper names in terms of an entity belonging to a set of name-bearers.
The terminative aspect of sentences is explained by the finiteness of the par-
tition which is completely dependent on the presence of the cardinality infor-
mation in the representation. It also presumes the mapping from indices into
the partitioned NP-denotation. If there is no cardinality information about V or
W in the above representations, as in the case of bare plurality, for example,
there is no way to constrain the partition. In that case the function W defined in
DEF 13.12, which is responsible for the tuning of the temporal information
expressed by the verb to the partitioned structure of the NP, can operate indefi-
nitely. Underlying the notion of such a mapping between time structure and
atemporal structure is the concept of localism. That is, the function is taken to
express progress in time, that is, dynamically. Mathematical functions are not
dynamic sui generis, but there are two ways of looking at them: statically and
dynamically. In the present theory the mapping between temporal structure
and atemporal structure requires a dynamic view and therefore the basic ingre-
dients of the functional machinery involved in the interpretation of [+ADD TO]-
verbs are taken from the localistic tradition. This accounts for the apparent
detour through the localistic framework in chapter 10, by which we got the
tools for bringing (48) and (51) under the same label.
To bring two things under one label may be done in different ways: one may
model one thing after the other, or one may change both. In the case of (48) and
(51) the latter strategy has been chosen: walk to three stores is now not
analysed as in Cresswell (1977) in terms of a going through a spatial region,
but rather in terms of a going through a set. The physical spatial information is
completely relegated to the lexical specification of walk itself, not to the rela-
tion between walk and its complement. The price to be paid at the other side is
the partitioning of the atemporal set of three sandwiches. This price is an
investment into a lot of insight into plurality. But it should be stressed here that
the basic intuition underlying the notion of partition cannot but be localistic.
This can only be seen at the moment at which a partition is made dependent on
time structure.
The present study has dealt with phenomena such as the Strawson-Russell
paradox, bare plurality, multiple quantification, the Progressive Form, habitu-
ality, tense, resultatives, etc. My 1972 book ended as follows: 'Whatever the
formal apparatus necessary to describe the opposition between Durative and
Nondurative Aspects may ultimately look like, I hope to have shown that the
generalizations made in this study should be accounted for in grammar'
(p. 178). The present book may end as follows: I hope to have shown that the
generalizations made in this study are accounted for by the formal grammar
developed here.

Cambridge Books Online

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cambridge Books Online

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cambridge Books Online

The Interaction between Temporal and Atemporal Structure

Book DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597848

Online ISBN: 9780511597848

Hardback ISBN: 9780521443623

Paperback ISBN: 9780521564526

Conclusion to Part III pp. 350-356

Chapter DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597848.021

Cambridge University Press

CONCLUSION TO PART III

<= NP: [NP]|, VP:

3.NP':|[ei(INP]) <= ©: [ 0 ] , NP: [NPJ

4.NP:IDET2KI[N]1) «= DET2 : [DET2 J, N: [N]

5. DET 2 : |SPEC] ( [DET' J) «= SPEC : [SPECJ , DET' : [DET' ]

TENSE AND PROG:

(280) Judith was eating three sandwiches

In (388), it is due to the presence of the bare plural information which

3W3P[WcUPcEdibleAlPI>lA3epsW[Q=U ieI {UnEdible:

In both cases, the result is durative.

(400) 3I3I R 3! V[V=Pudith]]n{ jj} A-,3W[Wc|[sandwich]]AlWI=3

You might also like