Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

More documents

Recommendations

Info

118 Chapter 4. An analysis of aoristic and imperfective aspectand imperfective on its own yields the completive interpretation of the aoristand the processual interpretation of the imperfective.conative(+ likelihood)✻intensionalisedversioncompletiveaorist:τ(e) ⊆ t TTimperfective:τ(e) ·⊃ t TTprocessualrestriction forbounded predicatesduration principle i.a.coercionduration principle i.a.coercion❄habitual✠ ❘complexive ingressiveFigure 4.15: Overview of the interpretations of aorist and imperfective 1Furthermore, I have argued that the aorist is restricted to bounded predicatesas to rule out a potential overlap between the use of aorist and imperfective.This selectional restriction of the aorist operator triggers reinterpretationwhen it is confronted with an unbounded predicate. In such cases an interveningcoercion operator solves the mismatch between the operator and theargument. I have introduced two operators for this purpose: the ingressiveoperator, which yields the ingressive interpretation, and the maximality operator,which yields the complexive interpretation. The Duration Principle playsa crucial role in the choice between the two operators, as each has a differenteffect on the duration associated with the predicate. If the topic time is short,
4.10 Conclusion 119an ingressive interpretation is chosen, since the ingressive operator shortensthe time associated with the predicate. If the topic time is long, both interpretationsare available, but a complexive interpretation may be favoured onthe basis of a general preference for stronger interpretations.I have argued that in contrast to the aorist, the imperfective does notimpose an aspectual class restriction on its argument. It combines equallywell with bounded and unbounded predicates. Nevertheless, the DurationPrinciple does play a role here as well: not only does it guide the choice amongthe various feasible reinterpretations (as it does with the aorist); it can alsotrigger its own reinterpretations. This is how the habitual interpretation of theimperfective comes about. If the topic time is longer than the typical durationassociated with the predicate, the mismatch is solved by the intervention ofa habitual coercion operator, which lengthens the time associated with thepredicate.To capture the conative interpretation, we must adapt our semantics ofthe imperfective in such a way that there is no commitment to the existenceof a complete eventuality of the kind described by the bare predicate in theactual world. I have indicated a way to do this in section 4.9. The likelihoodinterpretation then is the result of a coercion process with punctual predicates.The imperfective indicates that the topic time is included in an eventuality’sruntime, which is impossible for punctual eventualities. As with an habitualreinterpretation, this mismatch in duration is solved by a coercion operator,this time a coercion operator that returns preparatory eventualities.The proposed account combines the semantics of perfective and imperfectiveaspect of von Stechow et al., de Swart’s idea of coercion in this domain,and Egg’s Duration Principle. Moreover, it integrates Krifka’s AOR operator inthe form of a maximality operator that yields the complexive interpretation,and it is formulated in Kamp’s DRT framework. Crucially, the account combinesthe insights but leaves out the problematic parts of each of these previousaccounts. I use de Swart’s idea of coercion, but, by adopting the semantics ofimperfective and aoristic aspect of von Stechow et al., I do not end up witha vacuous semantics of the aspects. Furthermore, my account explains whythe ingressive interpretation of the aorist is restricted to unbounded predicates(for only here is there a mismatch in aspectual class). At the same time it explainswhy the habitual interpretation of imperfective aspect is not restrictedto bounded predicates (for the habitual interpretation is triggered by a mismatchin duration rather than aspectual class), a point that was problematicfor de Swart’s account. Moreover, it offers an explanation for the restriction ofthe aorist for bounded predicates, which was missing in the account of von Stechowet al. A final and previously unmentioned advantage is that the accountexplains why we find a reinterpretation that lengthens the time associatedwith the predicate with the imperfective (the habitual interpretation), and a
Page 3:
Aspect in Ancient GreekA semantic a
Page 6 and 7:
viNick Asher, David Beaver, the lat
Page 9:
Contentsix8 Conclusions and discuss
Page 12 and 13:
2 Chapter 1. Introductiongroundbrea
Page 14 and 15:
4 Chapter 1. Introduction(4) µετ
Page 16 and 17:
6 Chapter 1. Introductionimperfecti
Page 19 and 20:
1.3 Organisation of the thesis 9In
Page 21 and 22:
Chapter 2The interpretations of aor
Page 23 and 24:
2.3 Additional interpretations of t
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31:
2.5 The challenge 21scriptions of h
Page 34 and 35:
24 Chapter 3. Aspect in formal sema
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52:
Page 57 and 58:
3.2 The perfective-imperfective dis
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78: 3.3 Aspectual coercion 673.3.1 Aspe
Page 79 and 80: 3.3 Aspectual coercion 69bials ((88
Page 81 and 82: 3.3 Aspectual coercion 71the term c
Page 83 and 84: 3.3 Aspectual coercion 73in the ext
Page 86 and 87: 76 Chapter 4. An analysis of aorist
Page 110 and 111: 100 Chapter 4. An analysis of aoris
Page 132 and 133: 122 Chapter 5. Aspect and performat
Page 144 and 145: 134 Chapter 6. The temporal structu
Page 168 and 169: 158 Chapter 7. Comparison to theori
Page 178 and 179:
168 Chapter 7. Comparison to theori
Page 180 and 181:
170 Chapter 7. Comparison to theori
Page 182 and 183:
172 Chapter 8. Conclusions and disc
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
178 Appendix A: The language of Com
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
192 Appendix B: Examples spelled ou
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
206 Appendix C: List of abbreviatio
Page 218 and 219:
208 Appendix C: List of abbreviatio
Page 220 and 221:
210 References(Eds.), Cross-linguis
Page 222 and 223:
212 ReferencesGrice, P. (1975). Log
Page 224 and 225:
214 ReferencesLemmon, E. J. (1962).
Page 226 and 227:
216 Referencesvan der Sandt, R. (19
Page 228 and 229:
218 References
Page 230 and 231:
220 Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch)
Page 232 and 233:
222 Samenvatting (Summary in Dutch)
show all

Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?