Cover not available
Part of
Boundaries, Phases and Interfaces: Case studies in honor of Violeta Demonte
Edited by Olga Fernández-Soriano, Elena Castroviejo Miró and Isabel Pérez-Jiménez
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 239] 2017
► pp. 151–172

The grammaticalization of ‘big’ situations

The IMPF operator and perfective imperfects in Bulgarian

| University of Ottawa
| University of Ottawa
| University of Ottawa
Assuming that syntax and morphology constraints can target ‘situation size’ in semantics, this paper argues for the necessity of constraints on ‘big’ situations, and for their grammaticalization. Data from Bulgarian indicate that complex (viewpoint) aspectual interactions between Perfective verbs in the Imperfect Tense in adjunct/restrictor clauses and verbs in the Imperfect Tense in main/nuclear scope clauses trigger habitual interpretations. Such interactions result in propositions that can only be true in ‘big’ situations, informally described as ‘non-accidental generalizations on repeated actions that are complete’. Furthermore, a morphological contrast between Perfective Imperfects and Perfective Aorists in adverbial adjunct clauses accounts for restrictions on the modal interpretations of imperfective aspect associated with a Viewpoint operator IMPF, and distinguishes between ongoing and habitual readings.
Keywords: Bulgarian, situation semantics, situation size, viewpoint aspect, imperfective aspect, (perfective) imperfect tense, (perfective) aorist tense
Article outline
  • 1.Proposal
  • 2.Perfective imperfects vs. Perfective Aorists
  • 3.The anatomy of verbs with the Imperfect tense inflection in Bulgarian
  • 4.IMPF in Bulgarian
    • 4.1Interpreting IMPF
    • 4.2Generic / habitual readings
    • 4.3Ongoing readings
  • 5.The interpretative effects of clausal restrictors on IMPF
    • 5.1A proposal on restrictors with Perfective Imperfects
    • 5.2A proposal on adjuncts with Perfective Aorists
  • 6.Viewpoint-level operators vs. V-level operators
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.239.08riv
References (27)
References
Arregui, Ana, Rivero, María Luisa & Salanova, Andrés Pablo. 2014. Cross-linguistic variation in imperfectivity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 307–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, John. [1950]1979. Truth. In Philosophical Papers, John Austin (3rd edn in 1979 by James O. Urmson & Geoffrey James Warnock), 117–133. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Berman, Stephen. 1987. Situation-based semantics for adverbs of quantification. In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 12, Juliette Blevins & Anne Vainikka (eds), 45–68. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Bertinetto, Pier Marco & Delfitto, Denis. 2000. Aspect vs. actionality: Why they should be kept apart. In Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe, Ӧsten Dahl (ed.), 189–226. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bonomi, Andrea. 1997. Aspect, quantification and when-clauses in Italian. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 469–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2004. Crossover situations. Natural Language Semantics 12: 23–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cipria, Alicia & Roberts, Craige. 2000. Spanish imperfecto and pretérito: Truth conditions and aktionsart effects in a situation semantics. Natural Language Semantics 8: 297–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Deo, Ashwini. 2009. Unifying the imperfective and the progressive: Partitions as quantificational domains. Linguistics and Philosophy 32: 475–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elbourne, Paul. 2005. Situations and Individuals. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Geach, Peter. 1962. Reference and Generality. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
van Geenhoven, Veerle. 2004. For-adverbials, frequentative aspect, and pluractionality. Natural Language Semantics 12: 135–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Atelicity, pluractionality, and adverbial quantification. In Perspectives on Aspect, Henk Verkuyl, Henriette de Swart & Engeliek van Hout (eds), 107–125. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gvozdanovic, Jadranka. 2012. Perfective and imperfective aspect. In The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, Robert I. Binnick (ed.), 781–802. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene, 1990. E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 137–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 231–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1989. An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 607–653. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Situations in natural language semantics. Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philoshophy, 20 January 2014. <[URL]> Google Scholar
Maslov, Jurij S. 1959. Glagol’nyj vid v sovremennom bolgarskom jazyke (znacenie i upotreblenie). In Voprosy Grammatiki Bolgarskogo Literaturnogo Jazyka, Samuil B. Bernesejn (ed.), 157–312. Moscow: Akademiía Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Menéndez-Benito, Paula. 2002. Aspect and adverbial quantification in Spanish. In NELS 32 Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, Masako Hirotani, et al. (eds), 365–382. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Nitsolova, Ruselina. 2008. Bălgarska Gramatika: Morfologija. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridksi University Press.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1973. Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy 70: 601–609. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pašov, Petăr. 1999. Bălgarska Gramatika. Sofia: Hermes.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 1995. Adverbial quantification over events. Natural Language Semantics 3: 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa & Slavkov, Nikolay. 2014. Imperfect(ive) variation: The case of Bulgarian. Lingua 150: 232–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1997. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Pitsch, Hagen
2024. Tense and Mood Forms. In The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics, ► pp. 179 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.