Predicate classes
A study in compositional semantics
The aspectual interpretation of sentences is constrained by the truth conditions predicates impose on points of times or time intervals. Using data from English, Vendler (1967) established a classification of four verb types on these grounds, that has been widely accepted in linguistic theory. Various researchers, among them Dowty (1979) for English and Ehrich (1992) for German, have proposed finer grained classifications. This paper is very much in the spirit of these proposals. Our aim is a detailed model of the compositional lexical semantics of predicates that models the contrasts of verbal aspect by implicit temporal arguments in the logical characterisation, thereby yielding a concise classification. Punctual and durative predicates are distinct through having either points in time or intervals as implicit temporal arguments. Truth intervals of predicates can be closed or open resulting in the telicity or atelicity of a verb. It is argued that resultativity must, in addition, be introduced by a secondary predicate denoting a result. This predicate may also be implicit. If it is explicit, however, it has the status of a syntactic argument. Since the secondary predicate is subject to a truth interval of its own, the verbal aspect of resultatives must be more complex than that of nonresultatives. Moreover, transitive and intransitive resultatives combine diverse kinds of elementary predicates such as ACT, BECOME, CAUSE Predicating over elementary events, licensing different argument structures and yielding specific truth conditions on times. Finally, a classification of 15 kinds of predicates is established on the basis of compositional complexity.
References (29)
Bibliography
Bierwisch, Manfred & Lang, Ewald
(
1989): “
Somewhat longer, much deeper, further and further.” In:
M. Bierwisch &
E. Lang (eds.)
Dimensional Adjectives
, Berlin: Springer. 471–508.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Burzio, Luigi
(
1981): “
Intransitive verbs and italian auxiliaries.” Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge MA.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cann, Ronnie
(
1993):
Formal Semantics: an Introduction
. Cambridge GB: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carlson, Gregory N
(
1980):
Reference to Kinds in English
. New York: Garland. Origninally: PhD-thesis. Amherst MA: University of Massachusetts1977.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carlson, Gregory N
(ed.) (
1995):
The Generic Book
. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chierchia, Gennaro
(
1997): “
Individual-level predicates as inherent generics.” In:
Carlson (1995: 176–223).
Comrie, Bernard
(
1976):
Aspect
. Cambridge GB: Cambridge University Press. Reprint 1993.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Davidson, Donald
(
1967): “
The logical analysis of action sentences.” In:
Nicholas Rescher (ed.)
The Logic of Decision and Action
, Pitsburgh PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. 81–95.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dowty, David R
(
1979):
Word Meaning and Montague Grammar
. Dordrecht: Reidel.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dowty, David R
(
1991): “
Thematic proto-roles and argument selection.”
Language
67: 547–619.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ehrich, Veronika
(
1992): ‘
Hier’ und ‘Jetzt’. Studien zur Lokalen und Temporalen Deixis im Deutschen
. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Engelberg, Stefan
(
2000):
Verben, Ereignisse und das Lexikon
. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Engerer, Volkmar & Nicolay, Nathalie
(
1999): “
Telizität, Aspekt und Zustandswechsel.” In:
Spillmann; Hans Otto &
Ingo Warnke (eds.)
Internationale Tendenzen der Syntaktik, Semantik und Pragmatik. Akten des 32. Linguistischen Kolloquiums in Kassel 1997
. Frankfurt am Main. 333–340.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fodor, Jerry A
(
1970): “
Three reasons for not deriving ‘kill’ from ‘cause to die’.”
Lingusitic Inquiry
1: 429–438.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haider, Hubert
(
1984): “
Was zu haben ist und was zu sein hat. Bemerkungen zum Infinitiv.”
Papiere zur Linguistik
30: 23–36.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haider, Hubert & Rindler-Schjerve, Rositta
(
1987): “
The parameter of auxiliary selection. Italian-German contrasts.”
Linguistics
25: 1029–1055.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jackendoff, Ray
(
1990):
Semantic Structures
. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Koo, Myung-Chul
(
1997):
Kausativ und Passiv im Deutschen
. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kratzer, Angelika
(
1995): “
Stage-level and individual-level predicates.” In:
Carlson (1995: 125–175).
Lohnstein, Horst
(
2011):
Formale Semantik und natürliche Sprache. Ein einführendes Lehrbuch
. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2nd edition.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Musan, Renate
(
2002):
The German Perfect. Its Semantic Composition and its Interactions with Temporal Adverbials
. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Partee, Barbara
(
1973): “
Some analogies between tenses and pronouns in English.”
Journal of Philosophy
70: 601–609.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pustejovsky, James
(
1995):
The Generative Lexicon
. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Reichenbach, Hans
(
1947):
Elements of Symbolic Logic
. Macmillan. Reprinted. New York: Dover 1980.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen
(
2006): “
Aspect and aktionsart.” In:
Keith Brown (ed.)
Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics
, Oxford: Elsevier. 535–538.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stechow, Arnim von
(
1992): “
Intensionale Semantik, eingeführt anhand der Temporalität.” Technical report, Universität Konstanz, Konstanz. Arbeitspapier der Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stechow, Arnim von
(
1995): “
Lexical decomposition in syntax.” In:
Urs Egli,
Peter E. Pause,
Christoph Schwarze,
Arnim von Stechow &
Götz Wienold (eds.)
Lexical Knowledge in the Organization of Language
. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 81–117.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stechow, Arnim von
(
1997): “
Funktionale Köpfe des Satzes aus semantischer Perspektive.” In:
Zur Satzstruktur im Deutschen
, Universität Tübingen, number 90 in Arbeitspapier des SFB 340. 263–290.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vendler, Zeno
(
1967):
Linguistics in Philosophy
, Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press,chapter Verbs and Times. 97–121.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by 1 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 june 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.