Abstract
Krifka, in his paper “Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics”, provides the first formal mereological (algebraic) analysis of the relation between nominal reference and temporal constitution (also based on his 1986 PhD thesis). The focus is on two manifestations of this relation in the grammar of natural languages. First, as many observed, there are direct structural analogies between the following two sets of distinction: namely, mass/count and atelic/telic. They are clearly reflected in their parallel cooccurrence patterns with quantifiers, numerical and measure expressions. Second, nominal reference and temporal constitution interact and mutually constraint each other in the derivation of meaning of complex verbal predicates. One key example is aspectual composition(ality) e.g., eat soup (atelic) versus eat two apples (telic). In order to provide an adequate analysis of the relevant data Krifka’s principal innovation is to assume a single join semi-lattice structure, undetermined with respect to atomicity, relative to which he defines two higher-order, cross-categorial predicates for reference types of natural language predicates: namely, quantized and cumulative. Specifically in the case of aspectual composition, the interactions and mutual constraints between the structure of objects and eventualities stem from the systematic mappings (homomorphisms) whose source is the lexical semantics of verbs. Such mappings are also independently motivated by other phenomena exhibiting systematic interactions objects and eventualities.
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.
The term ‘temporal constitution’is a translation of the German ‘Zeitkonstitution’, coined by François (Francois, 1985).
- 2.
The use “count nouns (or NPs)” and “mass nouns (or NPs)” here reflects the fact that there is no general agreement concerning the level of linguistic description on which these categories are grammatically relevant. Starting with Verkuyl (1971, 1972) at least, there have been debates whether the telic/atelic distinction, and subsequently also the mass/count distinction (Pelletier & Schubert, 2002), are distinctions that are relevant at the level of lexical items at all, and whether they should instead be viewed as distinctions at the level of phrasal constructions, as constructional properties of NPs, VPs and sentences.
- 3.
For Krifka (1989, 1998), these two sets of distinctions are taken to be semantic properties of nominal and verbal predicates, rather than being inherent in entities in the domain, in the external world. There are debates and numerous misunderstandings concerning the status of these categories. The key question is whether these are ontological categories (Bach, 1986; Parsons, 1990, i.a.) or whether these are categories that are properties of verbal and nominal predicates (Krifka, 1986, 1989; Filip Filip, 1993a, b; Partee, 1999, i.a.) (See Filip, 2011, 2012 for summaries of these debates.)
- 4.
There is a long-standing tradition of observations related to aspectual composition(ality), which can be traced to the nineteenth century philology (e.g., Streitberg, 1891). Some notable precursors are Poutsma (1926) and Jacobsohn (1933) (cited by Verkuyl, 1971, 1972, also 2005 and elsewhere, who credits them as the major sources of inspiration for his theory of aspectual compositionality), Garey (1957) (inspiration for Filip, 1985 and Krifka, 1986) and Leech (1969, p.137) who speaks of ‘semantic concord’ between nominal arguments and complex verbal predicates.
- 5.
The interpretations that are relevant for this test concern the temporal extent of singular eventualities denoted by predicates in the scope of these temporal modifiers. The interpretations that are irrelevant are iterative and generic interpretations. Moreover, for time-span modifiers, we need disregard the shifted inchoative interpretation of atelic predicates under which the time-span modifier denotes the measure of time until the onset of denoted eventualities from ‘now’ or some other reference point (see also Vendler, 1957, p. 147) (e.g., The children ran in an hour understood as meaning they started running after an hour from some understood reference point), and for durative modifiers, the irrelevant interpretations regard the duration of the result state that follows the set terminal point in the denotation of telic verbal expressions (e.g., John put the wine into the fridge for half an hour).
- 6.
This, among others, obviates the minimal part problem posed by the putative divisive reference of mass nouns and process-denoting (atelic) predicates (Taylor, 1977; Bach, 1981, i.a.), and also unintuitive results such that there is a sharp sortal difference between what walk (atelic, non-atomic domain) and walk a mile (telic, atomic domain) describe, even though it arguably is the same eventuality in the world under two different descriptions (Krifka, 2001).
- 7.
In compliance with later developments in event semantics, here the term ‘eventuality’ (coined by Bach, 1981) is used instead of ‘event’, given that ‘event’ is now restricted to mean an entity in the denotation of telic (accomplishment, and also achievement, according to some at least) predicates, and given that by ‘events’ Krifka (1989) intends to cover the domain from which both telic and atelic predicates draw their denotation.
- 8.
Krifka (1989) uses S, rather than O, for the relevant predicate variable.
- 9.
For a formal definition of an extensive measure function see Champollion and Krifka, 2016, §13.21.
- 10.
- 11.
Measure phrases, such as five meters, are of type [N/N] and analyzed by means of the number (n) expressed by the numerical word (five) and a measure function (μ), expressed by some measure word (meter). Syntactically speaking, numericals (five) belong to a basic category NM (numerical number), and consequently measure words (meter) have the category [N/N, NM] (see (4), Krifka (1989, p.83).
- 12.
Krifka (1989) analyzes extensive measure phrases (such as five ounces(of)) as ‘quantizing modifiers’ that derive quantized predicates from non-quantized ones, namely, denoted by mass terms (beer, gold) and plural terms (apples): ∀P∀P[qmodo(P,P) ↔ ¬qua(P) ∧ qua(P(P))] (Krifka, 1989, D28, p.82). In later works, he specifies the input of measure phrases in terms of the property of cumulative reference.
- 13.
This is reminiscent of Strawson’s (1959) view that the possibilities for identifying eventualities without reference to objects are limited, because eventualities fail to provide “a single, comprehensive and continuously usable framework” of reference of the kind provided by physical objects (Strawson, 1959, p. 46ff.).
- 14.
“An hour full of running is naturally assumed to be without gaps, like a bathtub full of water. A year full of winning (iterative) has got to have gaps, like a street full of policemen” (Vlach, 1981, p. 282, fn. 17).
- 15.
As Krifka (1998, and elsewhere) also observes, similar notions and relations mediating between participants and eventualities were proposed by others: e.g., [+ADD-TO] V property (Verkuyl, 1972, 1993), ‘measuring out’ tied to the internal direct object DP (Tenny, 1987, 1994), ‘structure-preserving binding relations’ (Jackendoff, 1996).
- 16.
Dowty’s (1987, 1989, 1991) treatment of Incremental Theme as one of the lexical determinants of argument selection is not entirely uncontroversial. For instance, Jackendoff (1996), Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2002, 2005, pp. 284–285) argue that Incremental Theme is not a factor in argument selection, while agreeing that the intuition behind it, which concerns structure-preserving mappings between eventualities and some suitable objects, plays an important role in a variety of aspectual phenomena.
- 17.
- 18.
Borer (2005) argues that a telic interpretation must be licensed by a quantity DP, with a definite DP being one subtype, including definite mass nouns and definite plurals.
- 19.
- 20.
Kagan (2013) applies this idea to a full-fledged scalar approach to the semantics of Russian prefixes.
- 21.
The line between incremental and non-incremental verbs is not always easy to draw, given that nearly all episodic verbs may be interpreted as incremental in a suitable context, cp. ‘latent incremental theme verbs’ (Rappaport Hovav & Levin, 2005).
Bibliography
Allen, R. L. (1966). The verb system of present-day American English. Mouton.
Bach, E. (1981). On time, tense and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics. In R. Pragmatics (Ed.), Peter Cole (pp. 63–81). Academic Press.
Bach, E. (1986). The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9, 5–16.
Bach, E., Jelinek, E., Kratzer, A., & Partee, B. (Eds.). (1995). Quantification in natural languages. Studies in linguistics and philosophy, 54. Kluwer Academic Publishers Group.
Bale, A., & Coon, J. (2014). Classifiers are for numerals, not for nouns: Consequences for the mass/count distinction. Linguistic Inquiry, 45(4), 695–707.
Beavers, J. (2008). Scalar complexity and the structure of events. In J. Dölling, T. Heyde-Zybatow, & M. Schäfer (Eds.), Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation (pp. 245–268). Mouton de Gruyter.
Beavers, J. (2013). Aspectual classes and scales of change. Linguistics, 54(special issue), 681–706.
Bolinger, D. (1975). Aspects of language. Harcourt and Brace.
Borer, H. (2005). Structuring sense, Volume I: In name only (Vol. 1) and Volume II: The normal course of events (Vol. 2). Oxford University Press.
Carlson, L. (1981). Aspect and quantification in tense and aspect. In P. Tedeschi & A. Zaenen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, 14 (pp. 31–64). Ann Arbor.
Cartwright, H. (1975). Amounts and measures of amount. Noûs, 9, 143–164.
Champollion, L., & Krifka, M. (2016). Mereology. In M. Aloni (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of semantics (pp. 513–541). Cambridge University Press.
Chierchia, G. (1998). Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of “semantic parameter”. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (Studies in linguistics and philosophy) (Vol. 7, pp. 53–103). Kluwer.
Chierchia, G. (2010). Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese, 174, 99–149.
Chierchia, G. (2015). How universal is the mass/count distinction? Three grammars of counting. In A. Li, A. Simpson, & W.-T. D. Tsai (Eds.), Chinese syntax in a cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 147–175). Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In R. A. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 184–221). Ginn.
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. Random House.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris Publications.
Dahl, Ö. (1991). Review: Manfred Krifka, Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution: Zur Semantik von Massentermen, Pluraltermen und Aspektklassen. Language, 67, 813–816.
Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In N. Rescher (Ed.), The logic of decision and action (pp. 81–95). Pittsburgh University Press.
Davidson, D. (1969). The individuation of events. In Essays in honor of Carl G. Hempel (pp. 216–234). Springer.
Declerck, R. (1979). Aspect and the bounded/unbounded (telic/atelic) distinction. Linguistics and Philosophy, 17, 761–794.
Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Reidel.
Dowty, D. R. (1988). “Thematic Proto-Roles, Subject Selection, and Lexical Semantic Defaults”, ms. (Paper presented at the 1987 LSA Colloquium. San Francisco).
Dowty, D. R. (1989). On the semantic content of the notion ‘thematic role‘. In B. H. Partee, G. Chierchia, & R. Turner (Eds.), Properties, types, and meanings, vol. II (pp. 69–130). Kluwer.
Dowty, D. R. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547–619.
Farkas, D. F., & de Swart, H. (2010). The semantics of incorporation. CSLI Publications.
Filip, H. (1985). Der Verbalaspekt und die Aktionsarten dargelegt am Beispiel des Tschechischen. Master’s thesis, Universität München.
Filip, H. (1989). Aspectual properties of the AN-construction in German. In W. Abraham & T. Janssen (Eds.), Tempus - Aspekt - Modus. Die lexikalischen und grammatischen Formen in den germanischen Sprachen (‘Tense - Aspect - Mood. Lexical and Grammatical Forms in the Germanic Languages’) (pp. 259–292). Linguistische Arbeiten, Band 237). Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Filip, H. (1990). Thematic roles and aspect. In B. Birch, K. Hunt, & V. Samiian (Eds.), Proceedings of the Western conference on linguistics (WECOL) 20 (pp. 88–99). California State University.
Filip, H. (1992). Aspect and interpretation of nominal arguments. In C. P. Canakis, G. P. Chan, & J. M. Denton (Eds.), Proceedings of the Chicago linguistic society (CLS) 28 (pp. 139–158). The University of Chicago.
Filip, H. (1993a). Aspect, situation types and noun phrase semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Berkeley.
Filip, H. (1993b). Verbal aspect and object case marking: A comparison between Czech and Finnish. In J. A. Nevis & V. Samiian (Eds.), Proceedings of the Western conference on linguistics (WECOL) 22 (pp. 43–59). California State University.
Filip, H. (1996). Quantification, aspect and lexicon. In G.-J. M. Kruijff, G. Morrill, & D. Oehrle (Eds.), Proceedings of the ESSLLI’96 conference on formal grammar (pp. 43–56). Charles University.
Filip, H. (1997). Integrating telicity, aspect and NP semantics: The role of thematic structure. In J. Toman (Ed.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics (FASL) III. The College Park meeting 1994 (pp. 61–96). Ann Arbor Michigan Slavic Publications.
Filip, H. (1999). Aspect, eventuality types and noun phrase semantics. Routledge. A revised version of Aspect, situation types and noun phrase semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Berkeley (1993).
Filip, H. (2000). The quantization puzzle. In J. Pustejovsky & C. L. Tenny (Eds.), Events as grammatical objects, from the combined perspectives of lexical semantics, logical semantics and syntax (pp. 39–95). CSLI Publications.
Filip, H. (2004). The telicity parameter revisited. In Proceedings of SALT XIV (pp. 92–109). Cornell University/CLC Publications.
Filip, H. (2005a). On accumulating and having it all: Perfectivity, prefixes and bare arguments. In H. Verkuyl, H. de Swart, & A. van Hout (Eds.), Perspectives on aspect. Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics (Vol. 32, pp. 125–148). Springer.
Filip, H. (2005b). In G. N. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), Reference and quantification: The Partee effect. Festschrift for Barbara hall Partee (pp. 229–288). CSLI.
Filip, H. (2008). Events and Maximalization: The case of telicity and Perfectivity. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Theoretical and Crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect (pp. 217–256). John Benjamins.
Filip, H. (2011). Aspectual class and Aktionsart. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp. 1186–1217). Mouton de Gruyter.
Filip, H. (2012). Lexical Aspect. In R. I. Binnick (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect (pp. 721–751). Oxford University Press.
Filip, H. (2017). The semantics of perfectivity. In P. M. Bertinetto (Ed.), Special issue of the Italian journal of linguistics. Symposium Press.
Filip, H., & Rothstein, S. (2005). Telicity as a semantic parameter. In J. Lavine, S. Franks, H. Filip, & M. Tasseva-Kurktchieva (Eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics (FASL) XIV. The Princeton University meeting (pp. 139–156). University of Michigan Slavic Publications.
Filip, H., & Sutton, P. R. (2017). Singular count NPs in measure constructions. Paper presented at the semantics and linguistic theory 27, University of Maryland.
Fillmore, Ch. J. (1971). Lectures on Deixis, (Lectures delivered to the 1971 Santa Cruz Linguistics Institute; distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.)
Francois, J. (1985). Aktionsart, Aspekt und Zeitkonstitution. In C. Schwarze & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Handbuch der Lexikologie (pp. 229–249). Kronberg.
Gabbay, D. M., & Moravcsik, J. M. E. (1973). Sameness and individuation. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 513–526.
Garey, H. B. (1957). Verbal aspects in French. Language, 33, 91–110.
Grimm, S. (2012). Number and individuation. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University. Stanford, CA.
Gruber, J. S. (1965). Studies in lexical relations. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Hay, J., Kennedy, C., & Levin, B. (1999). Scalar Structure Underlies Telicity in “Degree achievements”. In Proceedings of SALT IX (pp. 127–144). Cornell University/CLC Publications.
Jackendoff, R. (1991). Parts and boundaries. Cognition, 41(1), 9–45.
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.
Jacobsohn, H. (1933). Aspektfragen. Indogermanische Forschungen, 51, 292–318.
Johnson, M. (1977). The syntax and semantics of Kikuyu tense and aspect. Ph.D. thesis, Ohio State University.
Kagan, O. (2013). Scalarity in the domain of verbal prefixes. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 31, 483–516.
Kennedy, C. (2012). The composition of incremental change. In V. Delmonte & L. McNally (Eds.), Telicity, change, state: A cross-categorical view of event structure (pp. 103–121). Oxford University Press.
Kennedy, C., & Levin, B. (2008). Measure of change: The adjectival core of degree achievements. In L. McNally & C. Kennedy (Eds.), Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics, discourse (pp. 156–182). Oxford University Press.
Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language, 81, 345–381.
Kiparsky, P. (1998). Partitive case and aspect. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), Projecting from the lexicon (pp. 265–307). CSLI.
Kratzer, A. (2004). Telicity and the meaning of objective case. In J. Guéron & J. Lecarme (Eds.), The syntax of time (pp. 398–424). The MIT Press.
Krifka, M. (1986). Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. Zur Semantik von Massentermen, Individualtermen, Aspektklassen. Ph.D. thesis, Universität München, Germany.
Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, & P. van Emde Boas (Eds.), Semantics and contextual expressions (pp. 75–115). Foris.
Krifka, M. (1990). Four thousand ships passed through the lock: Object-induced measure functions on events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 487–520.
Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In I. A. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical matters (pp. 29–53). CSLI.
Krifka, M. (1995). Common nouns: A contrastive analysis of Chinese and English. In G. N. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (pp. 398–411). Chicago University Press.
Krifka, M. (1998). The origins of telicity. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp. 197–235). Kluwer.
Krifka, M. (2001). The mereological approach to aspectual composition. Paper presented at the Conference “Perspectives on Aspect”, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Krifka, M. (2007). Masses and countables: Cognitive and linguistic factors. Paper presented at the CASTL Workshop “The Syntax and Semantics of Measurement”, Tromsø, Norway.
Krifka, M., Pelletier, F. J., Carlson, G. N., Ter Meulen, A., Chierchia, G., & Link, G. (1995). Genericity: An introduction. In G. N. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (pp. 1–124). University of Chicago Press.
Landman, F. (2011). Count nouns – Mass nouns – Neat nouns – Mess nouns. In M. Glanzberg, B. H. Partee, & J. Šķilters (Eds.), Formal semantics and Pragmatics: Discourse,Context and models. The Baltic international yearbook of cognition, logic and communication 6. New Prairie Press.
Landman, F. (2016). Iceberg semantics for count nouns and mass nouns: The evidence from portions. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition Logic and Communication, 11, 1–48.
Lasersohn, P. (1995). Plurality, conjunction and events. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Leech, G. N. (1969). The new English grammar: A descriptive introduction. M.I.T. Press.
Leisi, E. (1953). Der Wortinhalt. Seine Struktur im Deutschen und Englischen. Quelle und Mayer.
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge University Press.
Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language (pp. 302–323). De Gruyter.
Link, G. (1987). Algebraic semantics of event structures. In J. A. G. Groenendijk, M. Stokhof, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth Amsterdam colloquium (pp. 243–272). ILLC.
Lønning, J. T. (1987). Mass terms and quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 10, 1–52.
Mittwoch, A. (1988). Aspects of English aspect: On the interaction of perfect, progressive, and durational phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy, 11, 203–254.
Moltmann, F. (1991). Measure adverbials. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14(6), 629–660.
Mourelatos, A. P. D. (1978/1981). Events, processes and states. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2, 415–434. Reprinted 1981 in Tedeschi, P., & Zaenen, A. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 1914: Tense and aspect (pp. 1191–1212). Academic Press.
Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. The MIT Press.
Partee, B. H. (1995). “Quantificational Structures and Compositionality.” Bach, E. et al. (1995). 541–601.
Partee, B. H. (1999). Nominal and temporal semantic structure: Aspect and quantification. In E. Hajičová, T. Hoskovec, O. Leška, & P. Sgall (Eds.), Prague Linguistic Circle Papers (Vol. 3, pp. 91–108).
Pelletier, J. F., & Schubert, L. K. (2002). Mass expressions. In D. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic, 10 (pp. 1–87). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Piñón, C. (2008). Aspectual composition with degrees. In L. McNally & C. Kennedy (Eds.), Adjectives and adverbs in semantics and discourse (pp. 183–219). Oxford University Press.
Platzack, C. (1979). The semantic interpretation of aspect and Aktionsarten: A study of internal time reference in Swedish. Foris Publications.
Poutsma, H. P. (1926). A grammar of late modern English, part II. Nordhoff.
Rappaport Hovav, M. (2008). Lexicalized meaning and the internal temporal structure of events. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect (pp. 13–42). John Benjamins.
Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (2002). Change of state verbs: Implications for theories of argument projection. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 28, 269–280.
Rothstein, S. (2004). Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Wiley-Blackwell.
Rothstein, S. (2010). Counting and the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics, 27(3), 343–397.
Rothstein, S. (2011). Counting, measuring and the semantics of classifiers. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 6, 1–41.
Rothstein, S. (2017). Semantics for counting and measuring. Cambridge University Press.
Sauerland, U. (2003). A new semantics for number. In R. B. Young & Y. Zhou (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT XIII (pp. 258–275). Cornell University/CLC Publications.
Sauerland, U., Anderssen, J., & Yatsushiro, K. (2005). The plural is semantically unmarked. In S. Kepser & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic evidence. Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives (pp. 413–434). De Gruyter Mouton.
Schoorlemmer, M. (1995). Participial passive and aspect in Russian. Utrecht University. OTS dissertation series.
Schwarzschild, R. (2002). The grammar of measurement. In B. Jackson (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT XII (pp. 225–245). Cornell University/CLC Publications.
Schwarzschild, R. (2006). The role of dimensions in the syntax of noun phrases. Syntax, 9(1), 67–110.
Smith, C. S. (1991/1997). The parameter of aspect. Kluwer. Reprinted in Carlota S. Smith (Ed.) (1997). The parameter of aspect (2nd Ed., pp. 227–261). Springer.
Strawson, P. F. (1959). Individuals. An essay in descriptive metaphysics. Methuen.
Streitberg, W. (1891). Perfective und imperfective Actionsart im Germanischen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 15, 7–177.
Sudo, Y. (2017). Countable nouns in japanese. Proceedings of WAFL, 11, 1–11.
Suppes, P., & Zinnes, J. L. (1963). Basic measurement theory. In D. R. Luce & e.a. (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 2–76). Wiley.
Sutton, P. R., & Filip, H. (2016). Mass/count variation: A Mereological, two-dimensional semantics. In S. Rothstein & J. Šķilters (Eds.), Baltic international yearbook of cognition, logic, and communication 11. New Prarie Press.
Sutton, P. R., & Filip, H. (2021). The count/mass distinction for granular nouns. In H. Filip (Ed.), Countability in the nominal and verbal domain. Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (Vol. 3, pp. 57–149). Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, B. (1977). Tense and continuity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 199–220.
Tenny, C. (1987). Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. Ph.D. thesis, MIT Press.
Tenny, C. (1992). The aspectual Interface hypothesis. In I. Sag & A. Szabolsci (Eds.), Lexical matters (pp. 1–27). Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Tenny, C. (1994). Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Kluwer.
Tenny, C., & Pustejovsky, J. (2000). A history of events in linguistic theory. In C. L. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (Eds.), Events as grammatical objects, from the combined perspectives of lexical semantics, logical semantics and syntax (pp. 3–37). CSLI Publications.
Van Orman Quine, W. (1960). Word and object. MIT Press.
Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. Philosophical Review, 56, 143–160.
Verkuyl, H. J. (1971). On the compositional nature of the aspects. Ph.D. thesis, University of Utrecht.
Verkuyl, H. J. (1972). On the compositional nature of the aspects. Reidel.
Verkuyl, H. J. (1993). A theory of aspectuality. The interaction between temporal and Atemporal structure. Cambridge University Press.
Verkuyl, H. J. (1999). Aspectual issues. Structuring time and quantity (CSLI Lecture Notes) (Vol. 98). CSLI Publications.
Verkuyl, H. J. (2005). Aspectual composition: surveying the ingredients. In H. J. Verkuyl & H. de Swart (Eds.), Perspectives on aspect. Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics (pp. 19–39). Springer.
Vlach, F. (1981). The semantics of the progressive. In P. J. Tedeschi & A. Zaenan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 14: Tense and aspect (pp. 271–291). Academic Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1967). On the semantics of verbal aspect in polish. In To honor Roman Jakobson. Volume 3 (pp. 2231–2249). Mouton.
Yatsushiro, K., Sauerland, U., & Alexiadou, A. (2017). The unmarkedness of plural: Crosslinguistic data. In M. LaMendola & J. Scott (Eds.), BUCLD 41: Proceedings of the 41st annual Boston University conference on language development (pp. 753–765). Cascadilla.
Zucchi, A., & White, M. (1996). Twigs, sequences, and the temporal constitution of predicates. In Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) VI (pp. 329–346). CLC Publications.
Zucchi, A., & White, M. (2001). Twigs, sequences, and the temporal constitution of predicates. Linguistics and Philosophy, 24, 223–270.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
(1) | Temporal trace function τ: E → T | Krifka (1989), p. 97 (D 40) |
∀e∀e’[τ(e ∪E e’) = τ(e) ∪T τ(e’)] | ||
The run time of the sum of two events e and e’ is the sum of the run time of e and the run time of e’. | ||
(2) | Locative trace function: π: E → L | |
∀e∀e’[π(e ∪Ee’) = π(e) ∪L π(e’)] | ||
The path trace of the sum of two events e and e’ is the sum of the path trace of e and the path trace of e’. | ||
Example: [[walk two miles]] = λx,e[walk(x,e) ∧ agent(e,x) ∧ | ||
mile(π(e)) = 2] | ||
A set of sums of walking eventualities, each to the amount of two miles | ||
(3) | a derived measure function μ’. Intuitively, it describes the transfer of a measure function from one domain to another, on the assumption that there is a homomorphism h from one domain to the other, i.e., a function that preserves some structural relation defined on its domain in a similar relation defined on the range (Krifka, 1989, p.80). For example, a measure function μ for times like hour, week or year can be used as a derived measure function μ’ on temporal traces of eventualities: |
(a) ∀e[μ’(e) = μ(τ(e))] Krifka (1989), p. 97 (D41) | |
where τ(e) = t, the temporal trace of e | |
(b) hour’(e) = hour(τ(e)) | |
(c) ⟦sing for an hour⟧ = λx,e[sing(e) ∧ agent(e,x) ∧ hour’(e) = 1] |
(4) | Two-place predicates that capture the structure-preserving ‘transfer’ properties of thematic relations that mediate between objects and eventualities (Krifka, 1998, D 29-D 33, p. 92, and 2001) |
• Summativity (cumulativity) | |
∀R[sum(R) ↔∀e,e’,x,x’ [R(e,x) ∧ R(e’,x’) → R(e∪Ee’, x∪Ox’)]] | |
A general condition for the relation between thematic relations and the join operations. For example, two events of drinking a glass of wine yield an event of drinking two glasses of wine (Krifka, 1989, D29, p.92). | |
• Uniqueness for Objects | |
∀R[uni-o(R) ↔∀e,x,x’[R(e,x) ∧ R(e,x’) → x = x’]] | |
There canbenotwo distinctobjectswhichbearthethematicrelationR to the same event (Krifka, 1989, D30). | |
• Uniqueness for Eventualities | |
∀R[uni-e(R) ↔ ∀e,e’,x[R(e,x) ∧ R(e’,x) → e = e’]] | |
There can be no two distinct events which bear R to the same object, that is, an event is related to a specific object. E.g., adrinking of aglass of wine is rela -ted only to this glass of wine as a theme/patient and to nothing else (Krifka, 1989, D31). | |
(o.k.: eat, write; not o.k.: read, see, push, ride) | |
• Mapping to Subobjects | |
∀R[map-o(R) ↔∀e,e’,x [R(e,x) ∧ e’ ⊂ Ee → ∃ x’[x’ ⊂ Ox ∧ R(e’,x’)]] | |
If an event bears R to anobject,anysubpart of the event bears R to some subpart of the object. E.g. every proper subpart of anevent eof drinking aglass of wine corresponds to a proper subpart of the glass of wine (Krifka, 1989, D32). | |
(o.k.: eat, write; not o.k.: read, see, push, ride) | |
• Mapping to Subeventualities | |
∀R[map-e(R) ↔∀e,x,x’[R(e,x) ∧ x’ ⊂ Ox → ∃e’[e’ ⊂ Ee ∧ R(e’,x’)]]. | |
If an event bears R to an object, any subpart of the object bears R to some subpart of the event (Krifka, 1989, D32). | |
(o.k.: eat, write, read; not o.k.: see, push, ride) |
Example | sum | uni-o | map-e | map-o | uni-e | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
eat an apple, write a letter | + | + | + | + | + | Strictly Incremental Theme |
read a book | + | + | + | − | − | Incremental Theme |
push a cart,see a movie | + | + | − | − | − | Theme/Stimulus |
(6) | a. | Strictly Incremental Theme: | ∀R[sinc(R) ↔ uni-o(R) ∧ map-o(R) ∧ map-e(R) ∧ uni-e(R)] |
b. | Incremental Theme: | ∀R[inc(R) ↔ uni-o(R) ∧ map-o(R) ∧ map-e(R)] |
(7) | Maximal Participant: |
∀x[max(P, x) ↔ P(x) ∧ ¬∃y[P(y) ∧ x < y]] Zucchi and White (1996, 2001) | |
An individual is a maximal P iff it is P and it is not a proper part of another P. | |
(8) | ⟦ write a sequence ⟧ = λyλe∃x[write’(e) ∧ ag(y, e) ∧ pat (x, e) ∧ |
max (λz∃e’[write’(e’) ∧ ag(y, e’) ∧ pat(z, e’) ∧ sequence’(z) ∧ τ(e’) ≤ tR], x)] | |
Zucchi and White (2001), p. 261) |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Filip, H. (2022). On Krifka’s “Nominal Reference, TemporalConstitutionandQuantification in Event Semantics”. In: McNally, L., Szabó, Z.G. (eds) A Reader's Guide to Classic Papers in Formal Semantics. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 100. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85308-2_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85308-2_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-85307-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-85308-2
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)