Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

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