Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 475–521 | Cite as

Unifying the imperfective and the progressive: partitions as quantificational domains

Research Article

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.

Keywords

Imperfective Progressive Habitual Genericity Quantificational adverbs Typological variation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abusch D. (1998) Generalizing tense semantics for future contexts. In: Rothstein S. (eds) Events and Grammar. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  2. Bach E. (1981) On time, tense, and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics. In: Cole P. (eds) Radical Pragmatics. Academic Press, New York, pp 63–81Google Scholar
  3. Bennett M., Partee B.H. (1978) Toward the logic of tense and aspect in English. Indian University Linguistics Club, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhatt, R. (1997). Counterfactual morphology in modern Indo-Aryan languages: Semantic and typological issues. Ms., University of Pennsylvania and MIT.Google Scholar
  5. Bohnemeyer J. (2002) The grammar of time reference in Yukatek Maya. Lincom Europa, MunichGoogle Scholar
  6. 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, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 93–110Google Scholar
  8. Bonomi A. (1997) Aspect, quantification and when-clauses in Italian. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(5): 469–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlson G.N. (1982) Generic terms and generic sentences. Journal of Philosophical Logic 11(2): 145–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 167–192Google Scholar
  11. Carlson G.N. (1999) Evaluating Generics. Illinois Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29(1): 1–11Google Scholar
  12. Carlson, G.N., Pelletier, F.J. (eds) (1995) The generic Book. The University of Chicago press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  13. Cipria A., Roberts C. (2000) Spanish Imperfecto and Pretérito: Truth conditions and aktionsart effects in a situation semantics. Natural Language Semantics 8(4): 297–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen A. (1999) Generics, frequency adverbs, and probability. Linguistics and Philosophy 22(3): 221–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Comrie B. (1976) Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 59–88Google Scholar
  17. Condoravdi, C., & Deo, A. (2008). Aspect Shifts in Indo-Aryan. In Proceedings of International Congress of Linguists (CIL 18), Seoul.Google Scholar
  18. Dahl Ö. (1975) On generics. In: Keenan E. (eds) Formal Semantics of natural language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 99–111Google Scholar
  19. Dahl Ö. (1985) Tense and aspect systems. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 412–425Google Scholar
  21. De Swart, H. (1991). Adverbs of quantification: A generalized quantifer approach. Ph.D. thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Gröningen.Google Scholar
  22. De Swart H. (1998) Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 347–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Declerck R. (1991) The origins of genericity. Linguistics 29(1): 79–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Deo, A. (2006). Tense and aspect in Indo-Aryan Languages: Variation and diachrony. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  25. Dowty D. (1977) Toward a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English ‘imperfective’ progressive. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(1): 45–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dowty D. (1979) Word meaning and Montague grammar. Kluver Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  27. Eckardt R. (1999) Normal objects, normal worlds and the meaning of generic sentences. Journal of Semantics 16(3): 237–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Farkas D., Sugioka Y. (1983) Restrictive if/when clauses. Linguistics and Philosophy 6(2): 225–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ferreira, M. (2005). Event quantification and plurality. Ph.D.thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  30. Filip, H., & Carlson, G. (1997). Sui generis genericity. In Proceedings of the 21st Penn Linguistics Colloquium (Vol. 4), Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  31. Goldsmith J., Woisetschleger E. (1982) The logic of the English Progressive. Linguistic Inquiry 13(1): 79–89Google Scholar
  32. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
  33. Heyer G. (1990) Semantics and knowledge representation in the analysis of generic descriptions. Journal of Semantics 7(1): 93–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Iatridou S. (2000) The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2): 231–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ippolito M. (2004) Imperfect modality. In: Guéron J., Lecarme J. (eds) The syntax of time. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 359–387Google Scholar
  36. Kiparsky P. (2005) The Vedic injunctive: Historical and synchronic implications. In: Singh R. (eds) The yearbook of south Asian languages and linguistics. de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  37. Klein W. (1994) Time in language. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Koontz-Garboden A. (2004) Language contact and Spanish aspectual expression: A formal analysis. Lingua 114: 1291–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 1–124Google Scholar
  40. Landman F. (1992) The progressive. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lawler, J. M. (1973). Studies in English generics. Ph.D.thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  42. 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, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Menendez-Benito P. (2002) Aspect and adverbial quantification in Spanish. In: Hirotani M. (eds) NELS proceedings Vol. 32. GLSA, Amherst, MA, pp 365–382Google Scholar
  44. Portner P. (1998) The progressive in modal semantics. Language 74: 760–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  46. Rooth M. (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ryding K.C. (2005) A reference grammar of modern standard Arabic. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. 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 83–95Google Scholar
  49. Smith C. (1991) The parameter of aspect. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  50. Thomason R.H. (1970) Indeterminist time and truth-value gaps. Theoria 36(3): 264–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thomason R.H. (1984) Combinations of tense and modality. Handbook of Philosophical Logic 2: 135–165Google Scholar
  52. Tröbs H. (2004) Progressive and habitual aspects in Central Mande. Lingua 114: 125–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vlach F. (1981) The Semantics of the Progressive. Syntax and Semantics 14: 271–292Google Scholar
  54. 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, StuttgartGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations