Grillo, Nino

Moulton, Keir

White Rose Research Online

This is a repository copy of Event Kinds and the Pseudo-Relative.White Rose Research Online URL for this paper:http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/132872/Version: Published VersionConference or Workshop Item:Grillo, Nino orcid.org/0000-0002-8224-365X and Moulton, Keir (2015) Event Kinds and thePseudo-Relative. In: 46th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 15-18 Oct 2015. eprints@whiterose.ac.ukhttps://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [itemize]leftmargin=*Event Kinds and the Pseudo-RelativeNino Grillo (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) and Keir Moulton (Simon Fraser University)nino.grillo@hu-berlin.de, kmoulton@sfu.caTHE PLOTIn previous work on Pseudo-Relative (PR) constructions, we show that they are headed by anull determiner. Because of this, PRs denote individual situations and so can complement directperception verbs.DPD CPMaria che piangeva(1) HoI.havevistoseenMariaMariachethatpiangeva.cry-IMPF.‘I saw Maria crying’Building on what we know about determiners in the nominal domain, we propose that PRsshow us that at least the following types of determiners are found in the clausal domain: (seePortner 1995, Ferreira 2005, Iatridou 2014, a.o.)Existential Quantifier D Specific (in)Definite D Kind-denoting DInfinitives under perception Standard PRs Habitual PRsHigginbotham (1983) Moulton and Grillo (2014) this talk!1. MOULTON & GRILLO 2015PRs are finite constructions found in Italian (2), and many other languages, that are only super-ficially like relative clauses (Radford 1977, Kayne 1975, Cinque 1995, a.o.).PRs can be constituents that refer to events/situations.(2) Ciò che1That which//(*Chi2)(Who)hoI.havevistoseenèisMaria2Mariachethatpiangeva1cry-IMPF‘What /(*Who) I saw was Maria crying’ (after Radford 1977: 160(98))PRs are DPs They can complement prepositions (3a), unlike standard finite CPs/infinitives (3b).(3) a. LaThestoriastorydiof[PR GianniG.chethatballa]dancesèisfantastica.fantastic.‘The story of G. dancing is fantastic.’ (Cinque 1992: (35b))b. *LaThestoriastorydiofchethatGianniG.ballavadanced/Gianni/G.ballaredance.INFnonnotèisvera.true.‘The story that G. danced is not true.’PRs, like infinitives and unlike finite clauses, are transparent, epistemically neutral.(4) GianniG.hahasvistoseenMariaM.piangerecry.INF/che/thatpiangeva,cry.IMPF,mabutpensavathoughtridesse.laugh.SUBJ.‘G. saw M. cry /crying but thought she was laughing.’(5) GianniG.hahasvistoseendallefrom.thelacrimetearschethatMariaM.piangeva,cry.IMPF,#mabutpensavathoughtridesse.laugh.SUBJ.‘G. saw from the tears that M. was crying, #but thought she was laughing.Barwise (1981): direct perception selects for individual situations (type s) not propositions, 〈s,t〉PRs are referential, in comparison to infinitives which are existentially quantified (Higgin-botham 1983)(6) NEGATION (EXISTENTIAL ENTAILMENT FOR PRS)Dato che Lea non ha mai ballato. . .MaxM.nonNEGhahasmainevervistoseenLea ballare il tangoL. dance.INF the tango/#/L. che ballava il tangoL. that dance-IMPF the tango‘M. never saw L. dance the tango / dancing the tango.’Scopelessness of PRs also replicated with respect to higher quantifiers (see table)Pseudo-RelativeDP: ιs: Lea dances the tango in sDTHE〈〈s,t〉s〉CP: 〈s,t〉λs.Lea dances the tango in sInfinitiveQP: λP.∃s[Lea dances the tango in s & P(s)]∃〈〈s,t〉,〈〈s,t〉〈s,t〉〉〉InfP: 〈s,t〉λs.Lea dances the tango in sMoulton and Grillo (2015, forthcoming) argue the D can also be a specific indefinite.2. A TWIST WITH TENSE MISMATCHESIn general, the tense of the PR must Match the matrix. Present tense only available under present.Past (imperfective) under past (simple past SP).(7) a. GianniG.videsaw.SPMariaM.chethatballava.dance.IMPF.past...past‘G. saw M. dancing.’b. *GianniG.videsaw.SPMariaM.chethatballa.dance.PRES.*past...pres‘G. saw M. dancing.’However, when the matrix clause is Present Perfect, Mismatch is possible, allowing present PRs.In that case, only generic spatial/temporal modifiers are allowed (giving rise to subkinds).(8) a. HoI.havevistoseenMariaM.chethatballadance.PRES(*al(at.theparcoparkgiovedìThursdayscorso).last).Mismatch‘I saw M. dancing at the park last Thursday’.b. HoI.havevistoseenMariaM.chethatballavadance.IMPF(alat.theparcoparkgiovedìThursdayscorso).last.Match‘I saw M. dancing at the park last Thursday’.(8a) and (8b) both report a past direct perception of one event of Mary dancing but (8a) addition-ally implies a habitual interpretation of the the embedded clause.But this is no ordinary embedded habitual: These PRs are also DPs:(9) CiòWhatchethathoI.havevistoseenèis[DP[questothistipokinddiofevento]event]eand[DP[MariaM.chethatballa].dances].‘What I have seen is this type of event and Mary dancing.’And most importantly, these PRs take scope under negation unlike the match cases.(10) MaxM.nonNEGhahasmainevervistoseenMariaL.chethatballadance.PRESilthetango.tango.¬>∃/*∃>¬‘M. never saw L. dance the tango / dancing the tango.’Lots of diagnostics contrasting Match PRs, Mismatch PRs and infinitives:Infinitives Match PRs Mismatch PRsNegation Wide/Narrow Scopeless (Wide) NarrowQP Wide/Narrow Scopeless (Wide) NarrowNumerals Collective/Distributive Collective Only Distributive OnlyConditional No existential entailment Existential Entailment No ex. entailmentAdjunct Island Multiple events *Multiple Events *Single EventEllipsis reading Strict/Sloppy Strict/*Sloppy Sloppy/*StrictSpatial/Temporalmodification✓(generic/punctual) ✓ (punctual) Generic onlyAbility to introducediscourse referents✓ ✓ ✗Pseudo Incorporation ✓ ✗ ✓Kind Anaphora ✗ ✗ ✓3. WHY DOES MATRIX TENSE-ASPECT MATTER?Experiential PERFECT (EXPPERF) promotes kind readings for DP objects; SIMPLE PAST (SP) onlyallows a token interpretation (see Carlson 1977:446 (122)).(11) GianniG.hahasassaggiatotasted.EXPPERFdioftutto,all,lathefoca,seal,lathebalenawhaleeandperfinoevenilthetricheco.walrus.G. is a guy who tried everything, seals, whales and even walruses. KIND(12) GianniG.assaggiòtasted.SPdioftutto,all,lathefoca,seal,lathebalenawhaleeandperfinoevenilthetricheco.walrus.G. tried everything, the seal, the whale and even the walrus. TOKENMatrix Tense/Aspect PR interpretation Def. NP interpretationSP Episodic PR TokenEXP. PERFECT Habitual/kind PR (PRES)or Episodic PR (IMPF)Kind or TokenThis research was funded by the DFG – Leibniz Prize AL 554/8-1 toArtemis Alexiadou and the Insight SSHRC Research Grant 435-2015-0454 to Junko Shimoyama (PI) and Keir Moulton.4. KIND PRSMany kind-taking predicates also take present PRs:(13) [MariaM.chethatballa]dancesèispiuttostorathercomune.common.‘Mary dancing is rather common.’2 ingredients:#1. Ferreira (2005), Kratzer (2007)• Habituals (e.g. the CP in (8a)) denote pluralities of events• Episodics (e.g. the CP in (8b)) denote singular events#2. Kind determiners: J Dkind K = λP.∩P(14) For any property P, ∩P = λw ιPw, if:λw ιPw is in the domain of Kinds K;P is plural; undefined otherwise. (after Chierchia 1998, 16)(15) [DP Dkind [CP Maria che balla-habitual ]] = the kind associated with an event of Mariadancing5.EXPLAINING THE SCOPE DIFFERENCE WITH DKPWhen token-taking verbs meet kind-denoting objects (16), the verb shifts by DKP:(16) [pointing at a picture of a lion in a zoology book] I saw that in the zoo(Chierchia 1998, ex. 18).(17) Derived Kind Predication (DKP):JverbK(kind) = ∃x[∪kind(x) & JverbK(x)]∪kind = the property describing instantiations of the kindJ (8a) K= ∃s[∪[DP∩[CP Maria che balla ]](s) & see(s)(I) ]= ∃s[s is an instantiation of an event-kind of dancing by Maria & I saw s ]Low scope in (10) is just a reflection of the existential incorporated by DKP:J (10) K= ¬∃s[s is an instantiation of an event-kind of dancing the tango by Maria & Max saw s]Other differences (see table) between Match PRs and Mismatch PRs follow. E.g. temporal modi-fiers are out (8a) because they attach to a habitual sentence — the token is only derived by DKP.Ambiguity: Even Match PRs can involve a kind PR, but that meaning appears to be less availablethan the episodic PR.6.CONCLUSION: SO WHAT’S SURPRISING?Habituals can be used in direct perception complements, via Dkind• Ds select clauses and return the expected descriptions of situations (expected on Kratzer1989, 2007 etc.)• The range of Ds is constrained by Aspect (episodic/habitual) in a manner expected byFerreira 2005.• Role of D and verbal inflection can be separated (cf. Ferreira 2005) as both exist in PRs.• What other Ds combine with CPs? Why not plural definites?REFERENCESBarwise. 1981. Scenes and other situations. The Journal of Philosophy, 78 369–397.Carlson. 1977. A unified analysis of the English Bare Plural. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1:413–457.Chierchia. 1998. Reference to kinds across language. Natural Language Semantics, 6(4), 339-405.Cinque. 1992. The Pseudo-Relative and Acc-ing constructions after verbs of perception. U. of Venice WPiL.Ferreira. 2005. Event Quantification and Plurality. Ph.D. MIT.Guasti. 1988. La pseudorelative et les phénomenènes d’accord. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, 13:35–57.Higginbotham. 1983. The logic of perceptual reports. The Journal of Philosophy 80:100–127.Kayne. 1975. French Syntax. MIT Press.Iatridou. 2014. About determiners on event descriptions, about time being like space (when we talk), and about oneparticularly strange construction. Natural Language Semantics 22:219–263.Kratzer. 2007. On the plurality of verbs. In Dölling, Heyde-Zybatow, & Schäfer (Eds.). De Gruyter.Moulton. and Grillo. 2015. Pseudo-Relatives: Big and Direct. Proceedings of NELS 45. GLSA.Portner. 1995. Quantification, events, and gerunds. In Bach, Jelinek, Kratzer & Partee (Eds.) Quantification In NaturalLanguages. Springer, The Netherlands. 619-659.Radford. 1977. Italian Syntax. Transformational and Relational Grammar. Cambridge University Press.

Event Kinds and the Pseudo-Relative

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/132872/1/NELS46_Poster_final.pdf

Event Kinds and the Pseudo-Relative

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

White Rose Research Online