Conference Perspectives on Aspect, University of Utrecht, OTS, Dec 12-14, 2001 – Manfred Krifka, Humboldt-Universität & ZAS Berlin, krifka@rz.hu-berlin.de , http:amor.rz.hu-berlin.de/~h2816i3x 1 The Mereological Approach to Aspectual Composition Manfred Krifka Institut für deutsche Sprache und Linguistik, Humboldt Universität & Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin 1. Aspectual Classes and Aspectual Composition: The Roots 1.1 Aspectual Classes Aristoteles (Metaphysic Θ 6, 1048b, 18-35), classification of actions into those that have limits (move towards a goal) and those that don’t and hence are completed as soon as they begin ( kineisis ‘movements’ vs. energeia ‘actualities’) E.g., at the same time we are seeing and have seen, are understanding and have understood […] while it is not true that at the same time we are learning and have learned, or are being cured and have been cured. Vendler (1957), partly based on Ryle (1949): Aspectual classes of Activities, Accom- plishments, Achievements, States. Development of linguistic tests. Accomplishment and Activities go on in time, Achievements and States don’t. Acc’s und Act’s differ in homogeneity: It appears, then, that running and its kind go on in time in a homogeneous way; any part of the process is of the same nature as the whole. Not so with running a mile or writing a letter; they also go on in time but, but they pro- ceed toward a terminus which is logically necessary to their being what they are. (p. 101) Kenny (1963): Performance verbs (Acc’s and Ach’s), Activitiy verbs (Act’s) and Static Verbs. Performance verbs always lead to a goal: Any performance is describable in the form ‘bringing it about that p’ 1.2 Formal Mereological and Decompositional Approaches First formal mereological approaches: Bennett & Partee (1972), “subinterval property” of expressions like run in interval semantics. If run is true at time interval t, then it is also true for every part t′ of t. Cf. also Taylor (1977). First formal decompositional approaches: Dowty (1972), Dowty (1979): Decomposition of Acc’s into an action and a stative predicate. E.g., draw the circle: Act in such a way that the circle is drawn is true. Combination with interval semantics: x draw- the circle is true at the minimal inter- val t such that the circle is drawn is false at the beginning of t, and true at the end. Explanation of tests for acc’s vs. act’s in this framework, e.g. in an hour / for an hour and almost . 1.3 Aspectual Composition Observation: The aspectual class can depend on the nature of the arguments. Garey (1957), aspect in French, telic vs. atelic predicates. If there is a direct object, and if this object designates something that has a structure with a temporal ending to it – a game of chess or of tennis, a Bee- thoven sonata – the expression verb-plus-object is telic. In the contrary case, if the complement of the verb is atelic – aux échecs ‘chess’, du violon ‘the violin’, du Beethoven ‘some Beethoven’ – or if there is no object (…), the expression is atelic. Verkuyl (1972): This also holds for non-temporal object NPs. General rule scheme, for direct objects; feature determination [±Specified Quantity] => [±Durative]: (1) [ V Verb [ NP Specified quantity]]: Non-durative [ V Verb [ NP Unspecified quantity]]: Durative This holds for movement verbs, perform verbs, take verbs and “add to” verbs: (2) a. walk (*from the train station to the university) for an hour b. play for an hour (Cello concertos / *a cello concerto) for an hour c. drink (whiskey / *a bottle of whiskey) for an hour d. knit (mittens / *a pair of mittens) for an hour Relation between specified quantity distinctions and durative distinctions: (…) the semantic information ‘UNSPECIFIED QUANTITY OF X’ or ‘SPECIFIED QUANTITY OF X’ pertains directly or indirectly to the Time axis. That ist, the quantities of X involved are expressible in terms of linearly ordered sets of temporal entities. (Verkuyl 1972: p.111) Can this relationship be expressed explicitly? Many authors have observed similarities between nominal distinctions and verbal distinctions (e.g., Leisi (1953), , Taylor 1977, Bach (1981, (1986), Langacker (1987). Platzack (1979): Aspectual composition by feature projection of transcategorial feature [± DIVID]: (3) a. peel a carrot: [a carrot ][–DIVID] → [peel a carrot][–DIVID] b. peel carrots: [carrots] [+DIVID] → [peel carrots][+DIVID] Problem: Feature projection rules like the ones by Verkuyl and Platzack rules are clearly semantically motivated, but this insight remains at a pre-theoretical level. This also holds for other feature-based descriptions such as Tenny (1987, (1992) and Jackendoff (1996). Tenny works with the intuitive notion of measuring out : In cases like peel a carrot, the object NP a carrot , which comes with a measure, meas- ures out the event expressed by the verb. 2. The Mereological Approach to the Semantics of NPs 2.1 Sum individuals Sets or sum individuals as reference objects for conjunction, plural NPs and mass nouns Hausser (1974), Bennett (1975), Link (1983). General sum formation results in a join semi-lattice. One possible implementation: