Johnson 2004 - CDLI - UCLA

separately on the basis of whether or not the single nominal argument of an intransitive
predicate is analogous to the agent of a transitive predicate as in (1a) or patient as in (1c):
agentive [+ agentive] predicates are often termed “unergative” on the basis of parallels
with the distinctive case-marking that is used to mark agents in ergative languages,
whereas patientive [– agentive] predicates are known as “unaccusatives” since their
single nominal argument is analogous to the distinctive case-marking used to indicate the
patient of a transitive predicate in accusative languages. In terms of lexical aspect,
unaccusatives are often quite similar to telic transitive predicates, while unergatives often
pattern along the lines of transitive predicates that lack telicity.
Rothstein, whose most recent work (2004) seems to represent a high point in recent
studies of lexical aspect describes these aspectual oppositions (excluding the ± agentive
feature) in terms of just two properties in the following table (after Rothstein 2004, 192,
ex. 1).
[± stages]
[± telic]
= occurs in progressive = naturally heads telic VP
States – –
Activities + –
Achievements – +
Accomplishments + +
On the one hand, therefore, activities and accomplishments have internal duration and
extend in time, whereas states and achievements do not, while on the other hand,
achievements and accomplishments have a natural endpoint, whereas states and activities
do not.
100