Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A force-theoretic framework for event structure

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

Abstract

We propose an account of dynamic predicates which draws on the notion of force, eliminating reference to events in the linguistic semantics. We treat dynamic predicates as predicates of forces, represented as functions from an initial situation to a final situation that occurs ceteris paribus, that is, if nothing external intervenes. The possibility that opposing forces might intervene to prevent the transition to a given final situation leads us to a novel analysis of non-culminating accomplishment predicates in a variety of languages, including the English progressive. We then apply the force-theoretic framework to the composition of basic Vendlerian eventuality types within a lexical-decomposition syntax. The difference between predicates of forces and predicates of situations is argued to underlie the dynamic/stative contrast, and also to allow for a formal treatment of the difference between be and stay. Consequences for the relationship between language and cognition are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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. (1985). On verbs and time. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Schäfer, F. (2006). The properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In M. Frascarelli (Ed.), Phases of interpretation. (pp. 187–212). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Schäfer, F. (to appear). External arguments in transitivity alternations: A layering approach (pp. 187–212). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Altshuler, D. (2013). There is no neutral aspect. Proceedings of SALT, 23, 40–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anscombe, G. E. M. (1971). Causality and determination. In E. Sosa & M. Tooley (Eds.), Causation (pp. 88–104). Oxford: Oxford University Press (Reprinted).

  • Aristotle. The Internet Classics Archive. Retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle.

  • Asher, N. (1992). A default, truth-conditional semantics for the progressive. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, 463–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, E. (1986). The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9, 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bale, A., & Barner, D. (2009). The interpretation of functional heads: Using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics, 26, 217–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbey, A., & Wolff, P. (2007). Learning causal structure from reasoning. In Proceedings of the twenty-ninth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Bar-El, L., Davis, H., & Matthewson, L. (2005). In L. Bateman & C. Ussery (Eds.), NELS 35: Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of the North East Linguistics Society (Vol. 1, pp. 87–102).

  • Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and assertion in Dynamic Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beavers, J. (2011a). On affectedness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29, 335–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beavers, J. (2011b). An aspectual analysis of ditransitive verbs of caused possession in English. Journal of Semantics, 28, 1–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beavers, J., & Zubair, C. (2013). Anticausatives in Sinhala: Involitivity and causer suppression. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 31(1), 1–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bittner, M. (1998). Concealed causatives. Natural Language Semantics, 7(1), 1–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobaljik, J. (1994). What does adjacency do? In H. Harley & C. Phillips (Eds.), The morphology–syntax connection. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (Vol. 22, pp. 1–32).

  • Bobaljik, J. (2012). Universals in comparative morphology: Suppletion, superlatives, and the structure of words. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohnemeyer, J., & Swift, M. (2006). Force dynamics and the progressive. Albuquerque: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonomi, A. (1997). The progressive and the structure of events. Journal of Semantics, 14, 173–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borer, H. (1998). Passive without theta grids. In S. G. Lapointe, D. K. Brentari, & P. M. Farrell (Eds.), Morphological interfaces (pp. 60–99). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borer, H. (2005). Structuring sense II: The normal course of events. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruening, B. (2012). By-phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax, 16, 1–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, G. (1989/2004). A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, & M. Everaert (Eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle. Explorations at the syntax–lexicon interface (pp. 22–59). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleland, C. (1991). On the individuation of events. Synthese, 86, 229–254.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Copley, B. (2002). The semantics of the future. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

  • Copley, B. (2008). The plan’s the thing: Deconstructing futurate meanings. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(2), 261–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copley, B. (2009). The semantics of the future. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copley, B. (2010). Towards a teleological model for modals. Talk presented at the Paris Working Sessions on modality, goals and events, CNRS/ENS/Paris VIII.

  • Copley, B. (2014). Causal chains for futurates. Future Time(s)/Future Tense(s). In M. Kissine, P. De Brabanter, & S. Sharifzadeh (Eds.), Future Tense(s)/Future Time(s) (pp. 72?86). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copley, B., & Harley, H. (2010). Causatives, ability, and dispositions. Talk presented at the workshop on dispositions, ability, and states of the project ANR GENIUS (Genericité: Interprétation et Usages).

  • Copley, B., & Harley, H. (2014). Telicity is launching and atelicity is entrainment. Paper presented at the workshop Dog Days 3, University of Toronto, 7 August 2014. Retrieved from http://bcopley.com/ wp-content/uploads/copley.toronto.slides.2014.pdf.

  • Copley, B., & Harley, H. (in preparation). A force-theoretic semantics. Ms., CNRS and University of Arizona.

  • Copley, B., & Harley, H. (in press). Eliminating causative entailments with the force-theoretic framework: The case of the Tohono O’odham frustrative cem. In B. Copley & F. Martin (Eds.), Causation in grammatical structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Copley, B., & Wolff, P. (2014). Theories of causation should inform linguistic theory and vice versa. In B. Copley & F. Martin (Eds.), Causation in grammatical structures (pp. 11–57). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Croft, W. (1990). Possible verbs and the structure of events. In S. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization (pp. 48–73). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft, W. (1998). Event structure in argument linking. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and syntactic constraints (pp. 21–63). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuervo, M. C. (2003). Datives at large. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

  • Dahl, Ö. (2007). Towards an ecological semantics of tense and aspect. In D. Monticelli & A. Treikelder (Eds.), Aspect in language and theories: Similarities and differences (pp. 111–123). Talinn: Tartu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In N. Rescher (Ed.), The logic of decision and action (pp. 81–95). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Swart, H. (1998). Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16(2), 347–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Del Prete, F. (2012). Imperfectivity and habituality in Italian. In A. Mari, C. Beyssade, & F. Del Prete (Eds.), Genericity (pp. 222–249). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dell, F. (1987). An aspectual distinction in Tagalog. Oceanic Linguistics, 22–23(1–2), 175–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowe, P. (2000). Physical causation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning in montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eells, E. (1991). Probabilistic causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Embick, D. (2010). Localism vs. globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelberg, S. (2002). The semantics of the progressive. In Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the Australian Linguistics Society. http://linguistics.anu.edu.au/ALS2001/proceedings.html.

  • Fábregas, A., & Marín, R. (2012). State nouns are Kimian states. In I. Franco, S. Lusini, & A. Saab (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2010. Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ Leiden 2010 (pp. 41–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Fernando, T. (2004). A finite-state approach to events in natural language semantics. Journal of Logic and Computation, 14(1), 79–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernando, T. (2005). Comic relief for anankastic conditionals. In Proceedings of the 15th Amsterdam colloquium (pp. 71–76).

  • Filip, H. (2008). Events and maximalization. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect (pp. 217–256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A. (1981). Representations: Philosophical essays on the foundation of cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folli, R. (2003). Constructing telicity in English and Italian. PhD thesis, University of Oxford.

  • Folli, R., & Harley, H. (2004). Flavors of v: Consuming results in Italian and English. In R. Slabakova & P. Kempchinsky (Eds.), Aspectual inquiries (pp. 95–120). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folli, R., & Harley, H. (2008). Teleology and animacy in external arguments. Lingua, 118(2), 190–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folli, R., & Harley, H. (2013). Against deficiency-based typologies: Manner-alternation parameters in Italian and English. Paper presented at WCCFL 31, Arizona State University, 10 February 2013.

  • Freyd, J. F., Pantzer, T. M., & Cheng, J. L. (1988). Representing statics as forces in equilibrium. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 395–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galton, A. (1984). The logic of aspect: An axiomatic approach. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors, P. (2004). Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors, P. (2005). The dynamics of thought. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors, P. (2007). Representing actions and functional properties in conceptual spaces. In T. Ziemke, J. Zlatev, & R. M. Frank (Eds.), Body, language, and mind. Embodiment (Vol.1, pp. 177–196). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Giannakidou, A., & Staraki, E. (2010). Ability, action, and causation: From pure ability to force. In A. Mari, C. Beyssade, & F. Del Prete (Eds.), Genericity (pp. 250–275). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giorgi, A., & Pianesi, F. (2001). Ways of terminating. In C. Cecchetto, G. Chierchia, & M. T. Guasti (Eds.), Semantic interfaces: Reference, anaphora and aspect (pp. 211–277). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Givón, T. (2001). Syntax (Vol. 1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasbey, S. (1996). The progressive: A channel-theoretic analysis. Journal of Semantics, 13(4), 331–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith, P. (2009). Causal pluralism. In H. Beebee, C. Hitchcock, & P. Menzies (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of causation (pp. 326–337). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14, 39–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale, K., & Keyser, S. (1993). On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In K. Hale & S. Keyser (Eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 53–109). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, N. (2004). Two concepts of causation. In J. Collins, N. Hall, & L. Paul (Eds.), Causation and counterfactuals (pp. 225–276). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), A view from Building 20 (pp. 111–176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harley, H. (2005). How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation, and the ontology of verbs roots in English. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (Eds.), The syntax of aspect: Deriving thematic and aspectual interpretation (pp. 42–64). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harley, H. (2012a). External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua, 125, 34–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harley, H. (2012b). Semantics in distributed morphology. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp. 2151–2172). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasegawa, Y. (1996). The (nonvacuous) semantics of TE-linkage in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(6), 763–790.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay, J., Kennedy, C., & Levin, B. (1999). Scalar structure underlies telicity in ‘degree achievements’. In Proceedings of SALT 9 (pp. 127–144). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Circle Publications, Cornell University.

  • Hegarty, M. (2004). Mechanical reasoning by mental simulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(6), 280–285.

    Google Scholar 

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

  • Herweg, M. (1991). Perfective and imperfective aspect and the theory of events and states. Linguistics, 29(6), 969–1010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J. (1985). On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 547–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J. (2000). Accomplishments. In Proceedings of 2nd GLOW in Asia (pp. 131–139). Nagoya: Nanzan University. Also published as Higginbotham, J. (2009). Accomplishments. In Tense, aspect and indexicality (pp. 116–125). Oxford: OUP.

  • Hobbs, J. R. (2005). Toward a useful concept of causality for lexical semantics. Journal of Semantics, 22, 181–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra, T. (1984). Transitivity: Grammatical relations in government-binding theory. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra, T., & Mulder, R. (1990). Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review, 7, 1–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, K., & Wolff, P. (2010). Simulation from schematics: Dorsal stream processing and the perception of implied motion. In R. Catrambone & S. Ohlsson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, K. J., & Wolff, P. (2013). Spatial language and the psychological reality of schematization. Cognitive Processing, 14(2), 205–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. (1975). A system of semantic primitives. In R. Schank & B. Nash-Webber (Eds.), Theoretical issues in natural language processing (pp. 112–117). Arlington, VA: ACL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. (1987). The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 18(3), 369–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. (1991). Parts and boundaries. Cognition, 41, 9–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kallulli, D. (2006). A unified analysis of passives, anticausatives and reflexives. In O. Bonami & P. Cabredo Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics (Vol. 6, pp. 201–225).

  • Kamp, H. (1979). Events, instants and temporal reference. In R. Bäuerle, et al. (Eds.), Semantics from different points of view (pp. 376–417). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In: J. A. G. Groenendijk, T. M. V. Janssen, & M. B. J. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language. Mathematical Centre Tracts 135 (pp. 277–322). Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.

  • Kamp, H. (2007). Intentions, plans, and their executions: Turning objects of thought into entities in the external world. Ms.

  • Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, G. (2003). Event arguments, adverb selection, and the Stative Adverb Gap. In E. Lang, C. Maienborn, & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Modifying adjuncts. Interface Explorations 4 (pp. 455–474). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Kearns, K. S. (1991). The semantics of the English progressive. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

  • Kennedy, C. (2012). The composition of incremental change. In V. Demonte & L. McNally (Eds.), Telicity, change, state: A cross-categorical view of event structure (pp. 103–121). Oxford: 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 and discourse (pp. 156–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure, degree modification and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language, 81(2), 345–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiparsky, P. (1997). Remarks on denominal verbs. In A. Alsina, J. Bresnan, & P. Sells (Eds.), Argument structure (pp. 473–499). Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kistler, M. (2006). Causation and laws of nature. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Koenig, J. P., & Chief, L.-C. (2007). Scalarity and state-changes in Mandarin (and other languages). In O. Bonami & P. C. Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 7 (pp. 241–262). Paris: CSSP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koenig, J.-P., & Muansuwan, N. (2000). How to end without ever finishing: Thai semi-perfective markers. Journal of Semantics, 17, 147–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koontz-Garboden, A. (2009). Anticausativization. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 27, 77–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (1989). An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics & Philosophy, 12, 607–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (1995). Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In G. N. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (pp. 125?175). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the external argument from its verb. In J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon (pp. 109–137). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (1998). More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In Proceedings of SALT VIII. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Kratzer, A. (2005). Building resultatives. In C. Maienborn & A. Wöllstein (Eds.), Event arguments: Foundations and applications (pp. 177–212). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (2013). Creating a family. Talk presented at workshop on Little v, University of Leiden, October 2013.

  • Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. F. A. K. van Benthem, & P. van Emde Boas (Eds.), Semantics and contextual expression (pp. 75–115). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In I. Sag & A. Szabolsci (Eds.), Lexical matters (pp. 29–53). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. (1998). The origins of telicity. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp. 197–235). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive science (Vol. II). Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, A. M., & Keeble, S. (1987). Do six-month old infants perceive causality? Cognition, 25, 265–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity. At the syntax–lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument realization. Research Surveys in Linguistics Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2008). Lexical conceptual structure. In K. von Heusinger, C. Maienborn, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (Vol. 1, pp. 420–440). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2010). Lexicalized scales and verbs of scalar change. Stanford: Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, L. (2007). The roots of verbs. Ph.D. dissertation, New York University.

  • Lewis, D. (1973). Causation. The Journal of Philosophy, 70, 556–567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombard, L. (1979). Events. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 9(3), 425–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maienborn, C. (2005). On the limits of the Davidsonian approach: The case of copula sentences. Theoretical Linguistics, 31, 275–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maienborn, C. (2007). On Davidsonian and Kimian states. In I. Comorovski & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax (pp. 107–130). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, A. (1984). On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, A. (1997). No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own Lexicon. In A. Dimitriadis, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st annual Penn linguistics colloquium. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics (Vol. 4(2), pp. 201–225).

  • Marantz, A. (2001). Words. Ms., NYU. Retrieved from http://ling.ucsc.edu/~hank/mrg.readings/Marantz_ words.pdf.

  • Marín, R., & McNally, L. (2011). Inchoativity, change of state, and telicity: Evidence from Spanish reflexive psychological verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29, 467–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthewson, L. (2004). Cross-linguistic variation and the nature of aspectual classes. Handout of talk given at Cornell University, February 26, 2004.

  • Matushansky, O. (2006). Head movement and linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(1), 69–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCawley, J. D. (1971). Pre-lexical syntax. In R. O’Brien (Ed.), Report of the 22nd roundtable meeting on linguistics and language studies (pp. 19–33). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCawley, J. D. (1976). Remarks on what can cause what. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), The grammar of causative constructions (pp. 117–129). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClure, W. (1994). Syntactic projections of the semantics of aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.

  • Michotte, A. (1946/1963). The perception of causality. Methuen: London.

  • Moens, M., & Steedman, M. (1988). Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics, 14(2), 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moltmann, F. (2013a). The semantics of existence. Linguistics and Philosophy, 36(1), 31–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moltmann, F. (2013b). On the distinction between abstract states, concrete states, and tropes. In A. Mari, C. Beyssade, & F. Del Prete (Eds.), Genericity (pp. 292–311). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montague, R. (1970). Pragmatics and intensional logic. Synthese, 22, 68–94. (Reprinted in R. Montague, Formal philosophy, Chap. 4, 1974, New Haven: Yale University Press).

  • Mumford, S., & Anjum, R. L. (2011). Getting causes from powers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naumann, R. (2001). Aspects of changes: A dynamic event semantics. Journal of Semantics, 18(1), 27–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naumann, R., & Piñón, C. (1997). Decomposing the progressive. In P. Dekker, M. Stokhof, & Y. de Venema (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh Amsterdam colloquium (pp. 241–246). Amsterdam: ILLC/Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nishiyama, A. (2006). The meaning and interpretations of the Japanese aspect marker -te-i-. Journal of Semantics, 23(2), 185–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogihara, T. (1998). The ambiguity of the -te iru form in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 7, 87–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paramasivam, K. P. (1977). Effectivity and causativity in Tamil. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.

  • Parsons, T. (1989). The progressive in English: Events, states, and processes. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 213–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. (1977). John is easy to please. In A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistic structures processing (pp. 281–312). Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piñón, C. (1997). Achievements in an event semantics. In A. Lawson & E. Cho (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory VII (pp. 273–296). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piñón, C. (2001). A finer look at the causative/inchoative alternation. In R. Hastings, B. Jackson, & Z. Zvolenszky (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory 11. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piñón, C. (2008). Aspectual composition with degrees. In L. McNally & C. Kennedy (Eds.), Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics, and discourse (pp. 183–219). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The syntax of event structure. Cognition, 41, 47–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pylkkänen, L. (2002). Introducing arguments. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Distributed by Cambridge, MA.

  • Pylkkänen, L., Martin, A. E., McElree, B., & Smart, A. (2009). The anterior midline field: Coercion or decision making? Brain and Language, 108, 184–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramchand, G. (1997). Aspect and predication: The semantics of argument structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramchand, G. (2008). Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first-phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rappaport Hovav, M. (2008). Lexicalized meaning and the internal temporal structure of events. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to aspect (pp. 13–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (2001). An event structure account of English resultatives. Language, 77, 766–797.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach, H. (1971). The direction of time. Berkeley: University of California Press. Originally published 1956.

  • Reinhart, T. (2000). The Theta System: Syntactic realization of verbal concepts. OTS Working Papers. TL-00.002, Utrecht University.

  • Rosen, S. T. (1999). The syntactic representation of linguistic events. GLOT International, 4(2), 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothmayr, Antonia. (2009). The structure of stative verbs. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, S. (2004). Structuring events: A study in the semantics of aspect (Vol. 5). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, I., & Soare, E. (2013). Event related nominalizations. In G. Iordăchioaia, I. Roy, & K. Takamine (Eds.), Categorization and category change (pp. 123–152). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saxe, R., & Carey, S. (2006). The perception of causality in infancy. Acta Psychologica, 123(2006), 144–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schachter, P., & Otanes, F. T. (1972). Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, F. (2007). On the nature of anticausative morphology: External arguments in change-of-state contexts. Doctoral dissertation, University of Stuttgart.

  • Schäfer, F., & Vivanco, M. (2013). Reflexively marked anti causatives are not semantically reflexive. Talk given at Going Romance, Amsterdam.

  • Shibatani, M. (1973). A linguistic study of causative constructions. Doctoral dissertation, University of California Berkeley.

  • Singh, M. (1998). On the semantics of the perfective aspect. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 171–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. (1983). A theory of aspectual choice. Language, 59(3), 479–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. (1991/1997). The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

  • Suppes, P. (1970). A probabilistic theory of causality. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmy, L. (1976). Semantic causative types. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), The grammar of causative constructions. Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 6, pp. 43–116). New York: Academic Press.

  • Talmy, L. (1981). Force dynamics. Paper presented at conference on language and mental imagery, May 1981, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Talmy, L. (1985a). Force dynamics in language and thought. In Papers from the regional meetings (Vol. 21, pp. 293–337). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

  • Talmy, L. (1985b). Force dynamics as a generalization over causative. In Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics (pp. 67–85).

  • Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatevosov, S. (2008). Subevental structure and non-culmination. In O. Bonami & P. Cabredo Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 7 (pp. 393–422). Retrieved from http://www. cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss7.

  • Tedeschi, P. J. (1973). Some suggestions for a semantic analysis of progressives. University of Michigan Papers in Linguistics, 1(2), 157–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • ter Meulen, A. (1985). Progressives without possible worlds. In W. Eilfort, P. Kroeber, & K. Peterson (Eds.), CLS 21 (Part 1, pp. 259–280). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

  • ter Meulen, A. (1990). English aspectual verbs as generalized quantifiers. In Proceedings of the seventh Amsterdam colloquium (pp. 303–315). University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

  • Thomason, R. (1970). Indeterminist time and truth-value gaps. Theoria, 18(3), 264–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomason, R., & Stalnaker, R. (1973). A semantic theory of adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 4(2), 195–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tovena, L. (2011). Accomplishments: Their telos and their structure. In I. Reich, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung 15 (pp. 1–15). Saarbrücken: Universaar - Saarland University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Travis, L. (2000). Event structure in syntax. In C. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (Eds.), Events as grammatical objects: The converging perspectives of lexical semantics and syntax (pp. 145–185). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Lambalgen, M., & Hamm, F. (2003). Event calculus, nominalisation, and the progressive. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26(4), 381–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Lambalgen, M., & Hamm, F. (2005). The proper treatment of events. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Valin, R. D, Jr. (1990). Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language, 66, 221–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Valin, R. D., & LaPolla, R. J. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vecchiato, A. (2003). The Italian periphrastic causative and force dynamics. In F. Nihan Ketrez, J. M. Aronoff, M. Cabrera, A. Ciger, S. Ganjavi, M. Petrova, & I. Roy (Eds.), USC Working Papers in Linguistics (Vol. 1, pp. 91–109).

  • Vecchiato, A. (2004). On intentional causation in Italian. In J. Auger, J. Clancy Clements, & B. Vance (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to romance linguistics (pp. 343–360). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review, 66, 143–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verkuyl, H. J. (1972). On the compositional nature of the aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlach, F. (1981). The semantics of the progressive. In P. J. Tedeschi & A. Zaenen (Eds.), Tense and aspect. Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 14, pp. 271–292). New York: Academic Press.

  • Walsh, C., & Sloman, S. (2011). The meaning of cause and prevent: The role of causal mechanism. Mind & Language, 26(1), 21–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, P. A. (2011). Visual impressions of force exerted by one object on another when the objects do not come into contact. Visual Cognition, 19(3), 340–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, E. (1981). Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review, 1, 81–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, P. (2007). Representing causation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 82–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, P. (in press). Causal pluralism and force dynamics. In B. Copley & F. Martin (Eds.), Causation in grammatical structures. Oxford: OUP.

  • Wolff, P., Barbey, A. K., & Hausknecht, M. (2010). For want of a nail: How absences cause events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 191–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, P., Hausknecht, M., & Holmes, K. (2011). Absent causes, present effects: How omissions cause events. In J. Bohnemeyer & E. Pederson (Eds.), Event representation in language: Encoding events at the language cognition interface (pp. 228–252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, P., & Song, G. (2003). Models of causation and the semantics of causal verbs. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 276–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, J. (2009). Agency and interventionist theories. In H. Beebee, C. Hitchcock, & P. Menzies (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of causation (pp. 234–262). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zacks, J. M., Kurby, C. A., Eisenberg, M. L., & Haroutunian, N. (2011). Prediction error associated with the perceptual segmentation of naturalistic events. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 4057–4066.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwarts, J. (2010). Forceful prepositions. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions (pp. 193–214). London: Equinox Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SFL (CNRS/Paris 8), Paris, France

    Bridget Copley

  2. University of Arizona, Tucson, USA

    Heidi Harley

Authors
  1. Bridget Copley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heidi Harley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bridget Copley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Copley, B., Harley, H. A force-theoretic framework for event structure. Linguist and Philos 38, 103–158 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-015-9168-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-015-9168-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation