Abstract
In this chapter, I investigate what parts of semantic structure-in particular event structure-can be mapped onto the parts of the VP. In the interest of determining how (well) the articulated VP fits into semantic notions, I look more carefully at uses of Inner Aspect. I begin the chapter by providing a brief overview of some treatments of event structure and VP structure in order to show how simplifying representation in the semantic component while enriching structure in the syntactic component allows for a more straightforward mapping from one to the other. The mapping of certain semantic components of event structure to the syntactic structure has become an active subdomain of syntax and here I present my own view. My claim is that the components necessary to compute the Vendler predicate classes are represented in a predictable way in the configuration and features of phrase structure.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In the discussion of aspect in Tagalog in Chapter 3, we saw that the position of this reduplicative morpheme is a bit problematic as its meaning appears to be more closely associated with Outer Aspect. I will give other examples of morphemes in this position that are more clearly associated with Inner Aspect in Chapter 7. In Chapter 3, I proposed that the appearance of reduplication within the VP occurs via coercion (for details on coercion, see Chapter 8).
- 2.
I thank Brendan Gillon for bringing this work to my attention and discussing it with me.
- 3.
This example has been adapted to be consistent with the glosses in this book. Morpheme-by-morpheme glosses will change slightly as different issues are highlighted, particularly with respect to verbal morphology.
- 4.
With the subject within the VP, the syntactic representations more closely reflect the semantic representations given in the Discourse Representation Theory of Kamp and Reyle (1993: 516–519).
- 5.
In Hale and Keyser’s work, external arguments are “severed” (as in Kratzer 1996) from the lexical representation. They are introduced in the s-syntax either by predication or by requirements of the elements in the extended projection of the lexical domain (e.g., Case, EPP).
- 6.
Williams’ (1981) work might be seen as a precursor of this line of research as it singles out the external argument from the other arguments of the predicate. Marantz (1984) points out that external arguments are in a sense arguments of phrases (the head plus the internal arguments).
- 7.
Kratzer (1988: 137), however, does suggest that the external arguments of some individual level predicates are merged in the Spec, TP.
- 8.
Consistent with the previous chapters, I use the terms V1 and V2 here to represent the higher and lower V, respectively. Larson did not distinguish these diacritically, which most likely reflects his use of the distinct heads as simply segments of one V.
- 9.
Hale and Keyser’s work will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.
- 10.
Hale and Keyser (2002) propose a different account from the one given in their earlier work. I follow the original account more closely, but also change some details to better fit the structure being argued for here.
- 11.
In Hale and Keyser (1993, 2002), the structures are slightly different. The Theme would be in Spec, PP.
- 12.
For Hale and Keyser (1993, 2002), only the inner subject would be part of the argument structure of the root.
- 13.
One could argue that shelve is bimorphemic, with a verbalizing morpheme causing the change from f to v. Other denominal verbs, such as saddle, appear to be monomorphemic. Deadjectival verbs such as redden are clearly bimorphemic, and verbs like thin trans /thin intrans appear to be monomorphemic. The problem is that all of them will have the same amount of syntax and semantics regardless of their overt morphological structure.
- 14.
Viewing phrase structure as a mirror of event structure has become a bit of a cottage industry. I have tried to cite a range of references throughout this work but it is certainly not an exhaustive list. Some of the nicest and earliest examples of work done on this topic were either produced by Hoekstra (e.g., 1988, 1992) or inspired by him (den Dikken 1995; Sybesma 1992, 1999). Some collections also give a sampling of what is being done currently, such as Kempchinsky and Slabakova (2005) and Erteschik-Shir and Rapoport (2005).
- 15.
See Grimshaw (1990: 7–10, 175, footnote 1) for a discussion of different theta-hierarchies.
- 16.
In Pustejovsky’s words, he is proposing a “generative theory of word meaning, but one very different from the generative semantics of the 1970s… we are suggesting that lexical decomposition proceed in a generative fashion rather than the traditional exhaustive approach” (Pustejovsky 1991: 53).
- 17.
This sort of specific selection for sentential complementation can be found in the work of Rochette (1988) and is used more widely now.
- 18.
The e under V1 is meant to encode the fact that the predicate is dynamic. This will be discussed in Section 4.4.4.
- 19.
I have changed his examples slightly but not in a way that is important to the discussion at hand.
- 20.
Use of these tests has created a bit of controversy. Many languages allow flexibility through coercion. For example, (19d) becomes fine with the frame adverbial if we measure the time up to the point where Mary became tired, while (19b) is acceptable with the frame adverbial if we imagine a task of running a certain amount. I discuss coercion in Chapter 8.
- 21.
I have changed the choice of verb to exemplify Achievements for reasons that become clear in Chapters 7 and 8. The problem is that certain Achievements are very easily coerced.
- 22.
We will return to the effect of adverbials on a predicate in Chapter 8.
- 23.
A reviewer points out that plural objects seem to cause iterative events just as plural subjects do. The example given was Children passed on the message for 10 minutes. While I do not find this example to be on a par with Mary built carts for 3 hours, I have worried that turning a single event into an iterative event can always make an Accomplishment into an Activity. This is also true with cases of coercion where Mary sang the song for 3 hours coerces an iterative reading. I leave the issue of coercion for Chapter 8.
- 24.
I have had mixed results with sentences like ‘Mary hammered the metal flatter and flatter for three hours’ and ‘Mary stretched it longer for three minutes’.
- 25.
I have presented these structures as they are given in Pustejovsky’s work. As a reviewer points out, closed could be construed as a passive but another root such as open could be used.
- 26.
Of course, this characterization of transitions is not new. Pustejovsky cites many other authors, including Aristotle.
- 27.
The state of not closed is linked to P (Process) in Pustejovsky’s work. In the text, however, Pustejovsky points out that the inchoative use of close expresses a shift from one state to another. This discrepancy will become important in my characterization of Achievements.
- 28.
Pustejovsky (1991: 64) states that “the PP acts like a function from processes to transitions.” It is not clear to me here why the transition does not overtly express the “not at the store” state associated with the initial process. The same question arises for the next structure, where “not flat” is not expressed overtly in the structure.
- 29.
Tenny (2000: 313ff) questions whether almost is really ambiguous or just vague. I follow Pustejovsky and others in treating it as ambiguous though nothing would be lost by taking almost out of this list of structure-sensitive (and ambiguous) elements.
- 30.
Further, the examples below show that some PPs modify only the final state in a transition.
(i) a. John gave Mary the record for the afternoon. (S)
b. John arrived for the day.
c. ? My terminal died for 2 days last week.
d. They killed the lights for five minutes.
- 31.
The discussion of coercion in Chapter 8 will argue that the case and position of the object are directly related to situation aspect, that is, Aktionsart.
- 32.
Other authors who propose a low constituent that represents the natural endpoint of an Accomplishment include Higginbotham (2000) and Snyder (1995).
- 33.
Outer Aspect will have scope over the whole event.
- 34.
As is well known, some predicates such as push require goal phrases to mark an endpoint. The Theme itself cannot mark the endpoint.
- 35.
There is a problem here with the second object in a double-object construction, which does measure out the event. In Mary gave the child a book for two years, it cannot be the giving that continues (only the result of having the book). In Mary gave the child books for two years it can be the giving that goes on for two years. The difference depends on the nature of the second object. Perhaps in the case of double objects, both DPs enter into an agree relation with Asp. This requires more research.
- 36.
I assume that V2 always has a Spec and a complement. This is discussed in Chapter 8.
- 37.
It may be that apparently single-VP states are in fact also double-VP states but with be rather than have in V1. Later in this chapter, we will see that Malagasy has a stative morpheme that appears in V1 but does not assign case.
- 38.
cause, e indicates an eventive cause. We will see a case of a stative cause in Chapter 7.
- 39.
In fact, such a conclusion would be problematic since idiom chunks and arguments of other predicates can appear in this position. See Section 2.5.4 for examples.
- 40.
In a sense, even with this test, Accomplishments remain a separate class. They are the class of predicates that can act like either Activities or Achievements.
- 41.
Uesaka notes that many speakers do not allow dative goal phrases with motion verbs in Japanese. In her dialect, this is possible and she points out that such constructions are reported in the literature. I refer the reader to her thesis for details.
- 42.
She also discussed the class of States, which I do not discuss here.
- 43.
Uesaka (1996: 35, footnotes 23, 24) points out that (63b) and (63c), as in English, can be made grammatical if there is an implicit endpoint added by context or the preparatory stages are targeted in the case of (63b).
- 44.
This translation was provided by Junko Shimoyama.
- 45.
I suggest that there is always a complement to V2 and it is the specification of this endpoint that encodes the telicity of these predicates. It might be that these zero complements are vague for Japanese Accomplishments or ambiguous between being telic (like the P to) or atelic (like the P toward).
- 46.
Chinese will be discussed more in Chapter 8. Interested readers should also look at a paper by Soh and Kuo (2005), where it is shown that some predicates are telic.
- 47.
Tai translates (68a) as ‘John performed the action of attempting to kill Peter, but Peter didn’t die’.
- 48.
The form of Zhangsan (Zhang San) varies depending on the author (Tai 1984; Sybesma 1992; Juffs 2000). I have kept the form of the source.
- 49.
Tai does not include ‘twice’ in his translation which I assume was just an oversight.
- 50.
I will continue to call these predicates Accomplishments though, in fact, they are not necessarily telic. They are distinguishable as a class, however, since the primary reading is telic, unlike the interpretations of Activities in these languages.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Travis, L.d. (2010). Event Structure and Phrase Structure. In: Inner Aspect. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 80. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8550-4_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8550-4_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8549-8
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-8550-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)