Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Unifying the imperfective and the progressive: partitions as quantificational domains

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Linguistics and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper offers a new unified theory about the meaning of the imperfective and progressive aspects that builds on earlier of analyses in the literature that treat the imperfective as denoting a universal quantifier (e.g. Bonomi, Linguist Philos, 20(5):469–514, 1997; Cipria and Roberts, Nat Lang Semant 8(4):297–347, 2000). It is shown that the problems associated with such an analysis can be overcome if the domain of the universal quantifier is taken to be a partition of a future extending interval into equimeasured cells. Treating the partition-measure (the length of each partition-cell) as a contextually dependent variable allows for a unified treatment of the habitual and event-in-progress readings of the imperfective. It is argued that the contrast between the imperfective and the progressive has to do with whether the quantifier domain is a regular partition of the reference interval or a superinterval of the reference interval.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abusch D. (1998) Generalizing tense semantics for future contexts. In: Rothstein S. (eds) Events and Grammar. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach E. (1981) On time, tense, and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics. In: Cole P. (eds) Radical Pragmatics. Academic Press, New York, pp 63–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett M., Partee B.H. (1978) Toward the logic of tense and aspect in English. Indian University Linguistics Club, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt, R. (1997). Counterfactual morphology in modern Indo-Aryan languages: Semantic and typological issues. Ms., University of Pennsylvania and MIT.

  • Bohnemeyer J. (2002) The grammar of time reference in Yukatek Maya. Lincom Europa, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Boneh N., Doron E. (2009) Modal and temporal aspects of habituality. In: Rappaport-Hovav M., Doron E., Sichel I. (eds) Syntax, lexical semantics, and event structure, 1651. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonomi A. (1995) Aspect and quantification. In: Bertinetto P., Bianchi V., Higginbotham J., Squartini M. (eds) Temporal reference, aspect and actionality Vol. 1. Turin, Rosenberg & Sellier, pp 93–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonomi A. (1997) Aspect, quantification and when-clauses in Italian. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(5): 469–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson G.N. (1982) Generic terms and generic sentences. Journal of Philosophical Logic 11(2): 145–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson G. (1989) On the semantic composition of English generic sentences. In: Partee B., Chierchia G., Turner R. (eds) Properties, types and meaning Vol. 2. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, pp 167–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson G.N. (1999) Evaluating Generics. Illinois Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29(1): 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, G.N., Pelletier, F.J. (eds) (1995) The generic Book. The University of Chicago press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Cipria A., Roberts C. (2000) Spanish Imperfecto and Pretérito: Truth conditions and aktionsart effects in a situation semantics. Natural Language Semantics 8(4): 297–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen A. (1999) Generics, frequency adverbs, and probability. Linguistics and Philosophy 22(3): 221–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comrie B. (1976) Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Condoravdi C. (2002) Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. In: Beaver D.I., Martínez L.D.C., Clark B.Z., Kaufmann S. (eds) The construction of meaning. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp 59–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Condoravdi, C., & Deo, A. (2008). Aspect Shifts in Indo-Aryan. In Proceedings of International Congress of Linguists (CIL 18), Seoul.

  • Dahl Ö. (1975) On generics. In: Keenan E. (eds) Formal Semantics of natural language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 99–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl Ö. (1985) Tense and aspect systems. Basil Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl Ö. (1995) The marking of the episodic/generic distinction in tense-aspect systems. In: Carlson G., Pelletier F.J. (eds) The generic book. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 412–425

    Google Scholar 

  • De Swart, H. (1991). Adverbs of quantification: A generalized quantifer approach. Ph.D. thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Gröningen.

  • De Swart H. (1998) Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 347–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Declerck R. (1991) The origins of genericity. Linguistics 29(1): 79–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deo, A. (2006). Tense and aspect in Indo-Aryan Languages: Variation and diachrony. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.

  • Dowty D. (1977) Toward a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English ‘imperfective’ progressive. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(1): 45–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowty D. (1979) Word meaning and Montague grammar. Kluver Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckardt R. (1999) Normal objects, normal worlds and the meaning of generic sentences. Journal of Semantics 16(3): 237–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farkas D., Sugioka Y. (1983) Restrictive if/when clauses. Linguistics and Philosophy 6(2): 225–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, M. (2005). Event quantification and plurality. Ph.D.thesis, MIT.

  • Filip, H., & Carlson, G. (1997). Sui generis genericity. In Proceedings of the 21st Penn Linguistics Colloquium (Vol. 4), Philadelphia.

  • Goldsmith J., Woisetschleger E. (1982) The logic of the English Progressive. Linguistic Inquiry 13(1): 79–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

  • Heyer G. (1990) Semantics and knowledge representation in the analysis of generic descriptions. Journal of Semantics 7(1): 93–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iatridou S. (2000) The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2): 231–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ippolito M. (2004) Imperfect modality. In: Guéron J., Lecarme J. (eds) The syntax of time. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 359–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiparsky P. (2005) The Vedic injunctive: Historical and synchronic implications. In: Singh R. (eds) The yearbook of south Asian languages and linguistics. de Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein W. (1994) Time in language. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Koontz-Garboden A. (2004) Language contact and Spanish aspectual expression: A formal analysis. Lingua 114: 1291–1330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krifka M., Pelletier F.J., Carlson G., ter Meulen A., Chierchia G., Link G. (1995) Genericity: An introduction. In: Carilson G.N., Pelletier F.J. (eds) The generic book. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 1–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Landman F. (1992) The progressive. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 1–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, J. M. (1973). Studies in English generics. Ph.D.thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

  • Lenci A., Bertinetto P.M. (2000) Aspect, adverbs, and events: Habituality vs. perfectivity. In: Higginbotham J., Pianesi F., Varzi A. (eds) Speaking of events. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Menendez-Benito P. (2002) Aspect and adverbial quantification in Spanish. In: Hirotani M. (eds) NELS proceedings Vol. 32. GLSA, Amherst, MA, pp 365–382

    Google Scholar 

  • Portner P. (1998) The progressive in modal semantics. Language 74: 760–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Rooth M. (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryding K.C. (2005) A reference grammar of modern standard Arabic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sag I. (1973) On the state of progress on progressives and statives. In: Bailey C.J.N., Shuy R. (eds) New ways of analyzing variation in English. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, pp 83–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith C. (1991) The parameter of aspect. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomason R.H. (1970) Indeterminist time and truth-value gaps. Theoria 36(3): 264–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomason R.H. (1984) Combinations of tense and modality. Handbook of Philosophical Logic 2: 135–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Tröbs H. (2004) Progressive and habitual aspects in Central Mande. Lingua 114: 125–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlach F. (1981) The Semantics of the Progressive. Syntax and Semantics 14: 271–292

    Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel K. (1995) A minimal theory of adverbial quantification. In: Partee B., Kamp H. (eds) Context-dependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning, Proceedings of the workshops in Prague and Bad Teinach (Vol. 1, pp. 153–93). University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, Yale University, 370 Temple (Room 204), P.O.Box 208366, New Haven, CT, 06520-8366, USA

    Ashwini Deo

Authors
  1. Ashwini Deo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashwini Deo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Deo, A. Unifying the imperfective and the progressive: partitions as quantificational domains. Linguist and Philos 32, 475–521 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-010-9068-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-010-9068-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation