On the Criteria for Distinguishing Accomplishments from Activities, and Two Types of Aspectual Misfits

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 93)

Abstract

In the literature on aspect at least eight criteria have been used for distinguishing between Vendlerian activities and accomplishments. This paper submits these criteria to a critical survey. Some of them are found to have exceptions and/or to need revision. It will be shown that in certain contexts two criteria, the telos, a.k.a. set end-point or culmination, and the aspectual adverbial (in an interval) are in conflict in sentences with quantized measure phrases. The paper will argue that the telos has priority; the adverbial is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for telicity, and the predicates in question do not fit neatly into either aspectual class. Additionally, it will be shown that predicates with non-specific DPs (e.g. some/many plums) are somewhat defective accomplishments.

Keywords

Mass Noun Measure Phrase Bare Plural Base Sentence Theme Argument 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Edit Doron, Peter Hallman, Fred Landman and Susan Rothstein for helpful discussion. Thanks also to Beth Levin, Malka Rappaport Hovav and an anonymous reviewer for comments on an earlier version of the paper.

References

  1. Bennett, Michael, and Partee, Barbara. 1972. Toward the logic of tense and aspect in English. System development corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. Reprinted in Partee, B.H. 2004. Compositionality in formal semantics: Selected papers of Barbara H. Partee. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Declerck, Renaat. 1979. Aspect and the bounded/unbounded (telic/atelic) distinction. Linguistics 17: 761–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Depraetere, Ilse. 2007. (A)telicity and intentionality. Linguistics 45: 243–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3): 547–619.Google Scholar
  7. Filip, Hana. 2008. Events and maximalization. In Theoretical and cross-linguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect, ed. S. Rothstein, 217–256. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  8. Garey, Howard. 1957. Verbal aspect in French. Language 33(2): 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1996. Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  10. van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. Semantic incorporation in indefinite descriptions: Semantic and syntactic aspects of noun incorporation in West Greenlandic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tübingen, Tübingen. Dissertations in Linguistics, Stanford.Google Scholar
  11. Hallman, Peter. 2009. Proportions in time: Interactions of quantification and aspect. Natural Language Semantics 17: 29–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Higginbotham, James. 2004. The English progressive. In The syntax of time, ed. J. Guéron and J. Lecarme, 329–358. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kenny, Anthony. 1963. Chapter VIII. States, performances, activities. In Action, emotion and will. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  14. Kratzer, Angelika. 2004. Telicity and the meaning of objective case. In The syntax of time, ed. J. Guéron and J. Lecarme, 389–424. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Events and grammar, ed. Susan Rothstein, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  16. Landman, Fred, and Susan Rothstein. 2010. Incremental homogeneity and the semantics of aspectual for-phrases. In Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure, ed. M. Rappaport Hovav, E. Doron, and I. Sichel, 229–251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mittwoch, Anita. 1971. Idioms and unspecified NP deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 255–259.Google Scholar
  18. Mittwoch, Anita. 1982. On the difference between eating and eating something: Activities versus accomplishments. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 113–122.Google Scholar
  19. Mittwoch, Anita. 1988. Aspects of English aspect: On the interaction of perfect, progressive and durational phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 11: 203–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mittwoch, Anita. 2010a. Event measurement and containment. In Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure, ed. M. Rappaport Hovav, E. Doron, and I. Sichel, 253–266. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mittwoch, Anita. 2010b. Numeral modifiers and temporal container adverbials. Berkeley Linguistics Society 35: 257–268.Google Scholar
  22. Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: MI Press.Google Scholar
  23. Piñón, Christopher. 2000. Happening gradually. In Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 445456. Berkeley.Google Scholar
  24. Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2008. Lexicalized meaning and the internal temporal structure of events. In Theoretical and cross-linguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect, ed. S. Rothstein, 13–42. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  25. Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rothstein, Susan. 2008a. Telicity, atomicity and the Vendler classification of verbs. In Theoretical and cross-linguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect, ed. S. Rothstein, 43–78. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  27. Rothstein, Susan. 2008b. Two puzzles for a theory of lexical aspect: The case of semelfactives and degree achievements. In Event structure in linguistic form and interpretation, ed. J.D. Dolling, T. Heyde-Zybatov, and M. Schaefer, 175–198. Berlin: Mouton-De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  28. Singh, Mona. 1998. On the semantics of the perfective aspect. Natural Language Semantics 6: 171–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. von Stechow, Arnim. 2001. Temporally opaque arguments in verbs of creation. In C. Cechetto, G. Chierchia & M.T. Guasti, Semantic Interfaces: Reference, anaphora, aspect. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 278–391.Google Scholar
  30. Tenny, Carol. 1987. Grammaticalizzing aspect and affectedness. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  31. Tenny, Carol. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and times. Philosophical Review LXVI: 143–160. Reprinted with minor changes in Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy, 97–121. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Vlach, Frank. 1981. The semantics of the progressive. In Syntax and semantics 14: Tense and aspect, ed. P.J. Tedeschi and A. Zaenen, 271–292. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  34. Zucchi, Sandro. 1999. Incomplete events, intensionality and imperfective aspect. Natural Language Semantics 7: 179–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zucchi, Sandro, and Michael White. 2001. Twigs, sequences and the temporal constitution of predicates. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 223–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations