Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

More documents

Recommendations

Info

72 Chapter 3. Aspect in formal semanticsreinterpretation is involved, but how the mismatch is resolved, i.e. which paththrough the network in chosen, is determined by world knowledge. In thefollowing section I zoom in on one instance of world knowledge influencingreinterpretation phenomena, viz. knowledge concerning the typical duration ofeventualities.3.3.3 Egg’s Duration PrincipleEgg devotes the last chapter of his 2005 book to the role of knowledge concerningthe typical duration of eventualities in reinterpretation phenomena. HisDuration Principle states that information on the duration of an eventualitythat is introduced by various linguistic expressions must be consistent. Thisprinciple has a twofold function in reinterpretation phenomena: (i) it guidesthe choice for a specific reinterpretation operator from the set of feasible reinterpretationsin the case of coercion triggered by other sources, and (ii) ittriggers its own reinterpretations.Let’s first consider an example of the first function (from Egg 2005:204):(95) a. Max played the ‘Flying Dutchman’ on his stereo for 5 months.b. Max played the ‘Flying Dutchman’ on his stereo for 10 minutes.According to Egg’s analysis, for-adverbials require unbounded predicates, butMax play the ‘Flying Dutchman’ on his stereo is a bounded predicate. Thismismatch in aspectual class has to be solved by an intervening coercion operator.From an aspectual point of view, there are at least two coercion operatorsthat could solve the mismatch: a progressive and an iterative operator. Egg(2005:94-97) defines these operators as follows:(96) PROGR = λPλe∃e ′ [P(e ′ ) ∧ τ(e) ⊏ τ(e ′ )](97) ITER = λPλe∃E[∪E = e ∧ ¬P(e) ∧ ∀e ′ [e ′ ∈ E → P(e ′ )]]Both operators are functions from predicates of eventualities onto predicatesof eventualities. PROGR resembles Krifka’s PROG operator, (66). ITER(P) is trueof an eventuality e iff there is a set of eventualities E whose convex closure(this is expressed by ‘∪’) is e and P does not hold for e but does hold forall eventualities in E. 33 Crucial for (95) is the effect of the two operators onthe duration associated with the predicate. There are eventualities in theextension of PROGR(P) that are shorter than the shortest eventuality in theextension ofP, but no eventualities that are longer than the longest eventuality33 The convex closure of a set of eventualities is the smallest convex eventuality such thatall eventualities in the set are part of this eventuality. However, as in Krifka’s account (seesection 3.2.2), the notion of convexity for eventualities is not defined and it is hard to seewhat it should mean.
3.3 Aspectual coercion 73in the extension ofP. We say that the progressive operator shortens the typicalduration associated with the predicate. Conversely, in the extension ofITER(P)we find eventualities that are longer than the longest in the extension of P, butno eventualities that are shorter than the shortest. The iterative operatorlengthens the typical duration associated with the predicate.Both operators are compatible with bounded predicates and return unboundedpredicates. So from an aspectual point of view both qualify as interveningoperators. However, both (95a) and (95b) have only one interpretation.For (95a) only an iterative reinterpretation is available, for (95b) only a progressive.This is accounted for in the following way. As we have seen, bothoperators affect the duration associated with the predicate that undergoes coercion.The typical duration associated with the predicate Max play the ‘FlyingDutchman’ on his stereo is some hours (this is how long Wagner operas take).The typical duration associated with the predicate that results if the iterativeoperator is applied to the predicate Max play the ‘Flying Dutchman’ onhis stereo is longer. The progressive operator has the opposite effect. TheDuration Principle states that the information on the duration of an eventualityprovided by various sources must be compatible. For (95), this meansthat typical duration associated with the predicate must be compatible withthe information provided by the for-adverbials. For (95a), the information iscompatible on an iterative reinterpretation, for (95b), on a progressive interpretation.In this way the Duration Principle constrains the range of feasiblereinterpretations.As I mentioned, the Duration Principle also triggers its own reinterpretations.Egg (2005:190) illustrates this with (98):(98) #Max played soccer on the beach for three months.(98) has an iterative interpretation. This reinterpretation is not motivated byan aspectual mismatch: for-adverbials select for unbounded predicates andMax play soccer on the beach is of this kind. Egg claims that the reinterpretationis instead triggered by an attempt to avoid a violation of the DurationPrinciple. The extension of the predicate Max play soccer on the beach doesnot contain an eventuality with a duration of three months. This clash betweenthe information on duration provided by the predicate and the for-adverbialcan be solved by the intervention of an iterative operator, since, as in theprevious example, this operator lengthens the typical duration associated withthe predicate. Thus the Duration Principle is an additional licensing conditionfor reinterpretation.In this section I have discussed the role of the Duration Principle in reinterpretationphenomena. In sections 4.5 and 4.7 we will see that this principleplays a role in the Ancient Greek aspectual system as well. I will claim that itis responsible for the choice between the ingressive and complexive interpreta-
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 52: 42 Chapter 3. Aspect in formal sema
Page 57 and 58: 3.2 The perfective-imperfective dis
Page 77 and 78: 3.3 Aspectual coercion 673.3.1 Aspe
Page 79 and 80: 3.3 Aspectual coercion 69bials ((88
Page 81: 3.3 Aspectual coercion 71the term c
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 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
134 Chapter 6. The temporal structu
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
158 Chapter 7. Comparison to theori
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
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?