2. 2
Part 1: Event-related quantification
• Next to the standard conservative
readings of quantifiers (collective,
distributive, cumulative), there is a type of
interpretation that targets events rather
than referents of the quantified nominal
expressions (see Krifka 1990).
(1) The referee showed seven yellow cards.
• Possibly 1 yellow card, but 7 events.
3. 3
Targets non-specific arguments
• Only non-specific quantified arguments
can receive this type of interpretation.
(2) a. 4000 ships passed through the lock
last year.
b. Certain 4000 ships passed through
the lock last year.
c. The 4000 ships passed through the
lock last year.
4. 4
Some facts from S-C
• Targets direct objects.
• Goals possible targets, iff there is no direct
object with the right semantic properties
(non-specific, not undergoing predicate
incorporation).
• Agentive subjects possible targets, iff
there is no direct object and no goal with
the right semantic properties.
• DO<Goal<SubjectAg
5. 5
Targets direct objects
• When there is a non-specific direct object,
only the direct object can bear an event-
related quantifier (to the extent that it has
the right properties).
(3)a.Danas je dodao 8 šrafova majstoru.
today Aux handed 8 screws craftsman
b.Danas je dodao šraf 8rici majstora.
today Aux handed screw 8Dat craftsmen
6. 6
Goals possible targets…
• … iff there is no object with the right
semantic properties (non-specific, not
undergoing predicate incorporation).
(4) Danas je dodao šraf 8-rici majstora.
today Aux handed screw 8.Dat craftsmen
• The DO must be either specific/definite or
it must semantically incorporate into the
predicate for an event-related reading to
be possible.
7. 7
Agentive subjects
• The same goes for agentive subjects.
(5) 5 ljudi je zvalo dok nisam bio tu.
5 people Aux called while I was away
8. 8
Similar to negative concord
• Only non-specific non-incorporating
participants.
• Different in allowing only one instance of a
concord marker. WHY?
(6)a. Niko nije odveo nikoga nigde.
N-who n-Aux lead n-who n-where
b. (6) vodiča je odvelo 6 ljudi do (6)
izlaza
6 guides Aux lead 6 people to 6 exits
9. 9
Negative concord
• Typology of negative concord with respect
to the hosts:
- all non-specific participants (S-C),
- all non-specific participants c-commanded
by the verb (Czech),
- only one (non-specific) participant
(German).
• The German pattern for quantity? Why?
10. 10
Neg vs. #
• Semantically, and pragmatically, under
negation, non-specific expression have an
additional domain-broadening effect
(Chierchia 2005); also, no introduction of
referents to the discourse.
• In other words, the interpretation of non-
specific expressions is more strongly
affected by a negative operator than by a
quantifier.
11. 11
Argument/role hierarchy
• DO<Goal<SubjectAg - WHY?
• A gradation in locality?
• Targeting a pair of elements: the verb and
an argument, where the argument is the
most local one to the verb, carrying the
right semantic properties to mark concord.
• See Zeijlstra (2004) or Haegeman &
Lohndal (2011) on West Flemish for
analyses of this type of agreement.
14. 14
Why it can trigger concord?
• Projections from the middle field known to
trigger agreement: Fin, T, Mood, Pol.
• AspP has been argued to be the
projection at the edge between the lexical
(VP) and the inflectional (IP) domain
(Smith 1991).
• Similar to TP (Demirdache & Uribe
Etxebarria 1997).
• Arguments that Slavic languages have no
tense (e.g. Borik 2011) – Asp pushed to
the middle field?
15. 15
Features involved
• I assume, with Verkuyl (1972), Tenny
(1989), Borer (2005) among others that
aspectual features, together with number
and quantifier features, belong to the
same group of quantity features.
• Interpreted in AspP.
• Other bearers of this type of features: the
undergoer (as an incremental participant),
the goal (as the bounder) and the verb
(i.e. whether its lexical meaning is
dynamic).
16. 16
The hierarchy
• This gives us another possible way to
account for the hierarchy: the involvement
in the quantity of the event.
• incremental theme < bounders < other
participants.
• The verb needs to agree with something in
the [asp] feature; interpretability of this
feature is favored to just carrying it, which
is favored to neither.
18. Evidence for quantification over
events
18
• Chinese event classifiers (Zhang 2002).
a. Ta da-le Baoyu liang
bazhang.
he hit-PRF B two CLpalm
‘He hit Baoyu twice with his hand.’
(not necessarily with two hands)
b. Ta da-lewo liangzuiba.
he hit-PRF I two CLmouth
‘He slapped my mouth twice.’
Mandarin (Zhang 2002:
19. 19
Part 2: Verbal prefixes
• Almost all morphologically bare verbs in
S-C are atelic and perfective.
• Prefixation makes a verb perfective; it can
be imperfectivized again, and/or receive
another prefix.
• No telic (culminative) meaning in S-C is
expressed by a verb without a prefix (even
kill, die, join, divide: u-biti, u-mreti, s-pojiti,
raz-dvojiti).
20. 20
Internal and external prefixes
• Internal prefixes contribute a resultative
component to the VP and correspond to
the preposition heading the goal phrase.
• The contribution of external predicates
relates to the quantity of the eventuality
(and of its incremental theme).
(7)Iz-na-vlačio si reze na vrata.
from-on-pull Aux.2Sg bars.Acc
on doors
‘You placed all the bars on the doors.’
21. 21
Internal vs. external
• External prefixes can stack, unlike the
internal (i.e. at most one prefix on a verb
can be internal, and then there can be
more than one external prefix).
(8) Iz-na-po-razbijao sam tanjire.
from-on-over-broke Aux1Sg plates
~‘I broke plates and thereby I exhausted
all the (breaking of) plates, resulting in a
lot of (breaking of) plates and I covered all
the available (breaking of) plates.’
22. 22
Internal vs. external
• Internal prefixes take the position closest to the
lexical verb.
• In a series of prefixes, one of which is internal –
this one must be the last one in the series,
adjacent to the verb.
(9) (Iz-)pod-(*iz-)vlačio si olovke pod
from-on-from-pull Aux.2Sg
pens.Acc under
orman.
cupboard
‘You placed all the pens under the cupboard.’
23. 23
Internal vs. external
• Internal prefixes may add an argument to
the argument structure of a bare lexical
verb, while the external prefixes cannot
have this effect.
(10) *(Od-)plesali su na terasu.
of-danced Aux3Pl on terrace
‘They danced away onto the terrace.’
25. 25
Grammatical aspect
• Usually the external aspectual projection
relates to the grammatical aspect, and the
internal to the lexical aspect.
• While the lack of resultative contribution in
external prefixes indicates a difference at
the lexical aspectual level, both types of
prefixes have the same type of
grammatical aspect effects (inducing
perfectivity).
26. 26
Resultativity – no difference
• External prefixes are also resultative; the
difference is in the complement of the
preposition, DP vs. VP (Arsenijević 2006).
(11) Jovan je na-pekao palačinke.
J Aux on-baked pancakes
‘Jovan baked a lot of pancakes.’
~Jovan acted and the result was ‘on
pancake-baking’, i.e. event-accumulation.
27. 27
Resultative interpretation
• The quantity effects of the typical external
prefixes can be derived from the
semantics of the corresponding
preposition:
• na ‘on’: acummulation;
• po ‘over’: full or partial coverage;
• iz ‘from’: exhaustion;
• za ‘behind’: cross a phase transition
(zapevati, zalomiti, zaleteti se, zabrazditi)
28. 28
Added argument – no difference
• External prefixes also add non-selected
arguments Arsenijević (2006), Žaucer
(2010).
(12)a. Pio sam (*se)vode.
drink.ptcAux1Sg Refl water.Gen
‘I drank water.’
b. Na-pio sam *(se)vode.
drink.ptcAux1Sg Refl water.Gen
‘I got my fill of drinking water.’
29. 29
One projection for both
• Conclusion: an analysis with both types of
prefixes related to the same structural
position is not only parsimonious, but also
empirically better.
• Both types of prefixes relate to the
specification of result, but take different
arguments.
31. 31
Remaining general problems
• General problem 1: how is it syntactically
encoded that the result predicate
describes a subevent of the (referent of)
macropredicate?
• General problem 2: why the preposition
still receives phonological realization in
internal prefixation – together with the
corresponding prefix?
32. 32
A problem for Žaucer
• Žaucer (2010) notes himself that his
structure gives the wrong ordering: while
the internal prefix ends up correctly on the
left of the verb, the external prefix ends up
on the right.
PP
…
VP
…
PP
pod
vukao
iz
pod
33. 33
Agreement
• General problem 2: why the preposition
still receives phonological realization in
internal prefixation – together with the
corresponding prefix?
• This is a pattern typical for agreement.
• Not surprisingly, established between the
verb and the bounder, two elements that
carry/contribute to the [asp] feature.
34. 34
The analysis, step 1: scope
sto
[aspu]
pod
[aspu:pod]
vukao
[aspi:dyn]
stolice
VP
PP
35. 35
Analysis, step 1, effects
• C-command: checking, valuation.
sto
[aspu:dyn:pod]
pod
[aspu:dyn:pod]
stolice pod-vukao
[aspi:dyn:pod]
VP
PP
AspP
36. 36
Analysis, step 2: relativisation
sto
[aspu:dyn:pod]
pod
[aspu:dyn:pod]
pod-vukao
[aspi:dyn:pod]
stolice
AspP
PP
AspP
AspP
pod-vukao
[aspi:dyn:pod]
39. 39
Multiple aspectual relativization
• The analysis derives structures analogous
to Bianchi’s (2000) Kaynean analysis of
multiple relative clauses.
• Aspectual relativization: enables multiple
(recursive) resultative specification.
• The rather abstract interpretation of
external prefixes comes from the fact that
the complement of the respective
preposition is a quantity specification
(AspP), not a lexical phrase (VP).
40. 40
Aspectual concord, i.e. agreement
• Aspectual agreement with the preposition
enables the relativization strategy (it
encodes that probing has taken place and
the original position of the VP/AspP).
• Languages that have lexical elements to
mark this agreement may also have
aspectual relativization – others not.
41. 41
Explanations
• Stacking of external prefixes: prefixes
stack in general, the fist one is special
(agreement involving VP, not AspP).
• Internal prefixes closest to the verb: only
first round of relativization involves VP.
• Quantitative vs. lexical interpretation:
quantitative vs. lexical complement of P.
• Prefixation of all the elements: agreement
via left adjunction.
42. 42
Explanations
• Unification of the result- and the macro-
event: relativization specifies one
eventuality as an aspectual modification of
another (~’e1 which is e2-bounded’).
• Doubling of the prefix and preposition:
agreement.
43. 43
New issues: PP specifiers
• How come external prefixes have no
specifiers?
• They actually do: either the direct object
moves up to each of the SpecPPs,
resulting in a measuring out interpretation.
(13) Jovan je na-pekao palačinke.
J Aux on-baked pancakes
‘Jovan baked a lot of pancakes.’
#..., although he baked a couple only.
44. 44
New issues: PP specifiers
• … or a new one is (i.e. externally) merged.
(14) Jovan se na-pekao palačinki.
J Refl on-baked pancakes.Gen
‘Jovan got his fill of baking pancakes.’
..., although he baked a couple only.
45. 45
New issues: goal-PP above VP
• Standard analyses have it below, perhaps
assuming that this corresponds to the
temporal posteriority.
• In line with general (cartographic) practice:
all the modifiers specific for a projecting
lexical item are in its extended projection.
• P goes with a nominal expression which
has its case assigned by the verb, not P.
46. 46
New issues: goal-PP above VP
• Trčim u sobu/sobi.
run.1Sg in room.Acc/Loc
‘I’m running into/within the room.’
• Complements of goal Ps bear the same
case as direct objects.
• Postpositions in some languages:
Ik ren de (in) kamer (in). Dutch
I run the (in) room (in)
Loc Acc
47. 47
How come the order is P, DP?
• i.e. how come not all languages are like
Dutch?
• Prepositions lexically specified as
proclitics?
• Agreement?
48. 48
New issues: lexical bottoms
• Kayne (2009) argues that lexical nouns
cannot have complements because of
their lexical nature – they have to bottom t
heir structure.
• The argument extends to lexical verbs, to
the extent they are open class lexical
elements.
• Indeed, in the present analysis the verb
bottoms its structure.
49. New issues: Internal and
external aspect
• Unification of the internal and the external
aspect.
• Unboundedness of an event embraces the
reference time and boundedness leaves it
out of the event time.
• This effect does all the syntactic temporal
organization: no tense in Slavic
languages.
49
50. 50
Wrap up
• Asp probes into the c-commanded
structure, looking for elements with the
[asp] feature.
• When found, checking and/or evaluation
are triggered, and possibly reflected in
agreement.
• In some languages, in the right syntactic
context, an empty AspP may be projected,
prompting aspectual relativization.
