Aspect projections and predicate type

Abstract

An important issue in the investigation of the syntactic and semantic properties of different classes of predicates has been the question of whether the aspectual classification of a given predicate (Aktionsart, also called situtational aspect, cf. Smith 1991) is a primitive feature of the verbal head of the predicate—part of its lexical entry—, or is rather a descriptive label for certain syntactic configurations of events and arguments. There is prima facie evidence in favor of both of these positions. Correspondingly, two different approaches to the syntactic representation of lexical aspect can be identified, differing primarily in whether movement of DP arguments to positions associated with certain aspectual interpretations is formally motivated for Case checking reasons, or is motivated primarily for the purpose of deriving those aspectual interpretations. In this paper I will propose that aspectual information is encoded in the syntactic structure in the form of Event Phrases which correspond to the temporal subevents of the predicate. Argument DPs are linked to specific subevents in the process of moving to check Case, but there are projections which are simultaneously the locus of both Case checking and checking of aspectual features. The paper will proceed as follows. In sections 1 and 2, I review the evidence for the syntactical vs. lexical determination of aspect and the existing analyses of the syntax of lexical aspect. In section 3 I briefly consider the implications of these analyses for general principles of argument projection, in particular, Burzio’s generalization. In section 4 I sketch out the proposed analysis and show how it accounts for the observed properties of the different aspectual classes. Finally, in section 5 I offer a preliminary analysis of the well-known cases of unergative/unaccusative alternations, based on the proposal in section 4.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 35 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.