Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:46:37.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aspectuality and countability: a cross-categorial analogy1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2008

Laurel J. Brinton
Laurel J. Brinton
Affiliation:
Department of EnglishUniversity of British Columbia#397–1873 East MallVancouver BCCanadaV6T 1Z1brinton@unixg.ubc.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper expands the analogy between events and count nouns, and between states/activities and mass nouns in English to include other situation types, including iteratives, habits, and multiple situations. It explores the evidence used to make such analogies, namely, the quantificational features of deverbal nouns, as each of the deverbalizing devices in English has its own aspectual qualities. It shows further that a number of parallels can be drawn between different types of bounding and debounding in the nominal and verbal domains. Finally, the paper presents a schema of the cross-categorial analogies relating to inherent meaning (mass/count features in nouns, situation types in verbs) and the semantic operations of (de)bounding and (de)collectivizing (quantificational and aspectual modification).

Type
Articles
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , May 1998 , pp. 37 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Algeo, J. (1995). Having a look at the expanded predicate. In Aarts, B. & Meyer, C. F. (eds.), The verb in contemporary English: theory and description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Allan, K. (1976). Collectivizing. Archivum Linguisticum 7: 97–117.Google Scholar
Allen, R. L. (1966). The verb system of present-day English. Berlin, New York and Amsterdam: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bach, E. (1981). On time, tense, and aspect: an essay in English metaphysics. In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 63–81.Google Scholar
Bach, E. (1986). The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartsch, R. (1981). Semantics and syntax of nominalizations. In Groenendijk, J. A. G., Janssen, T. M. V. & Stokhof, M. B. J. (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum. 1–28.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. (1988). Events and their names. Indianapolis and Cambridge, MA: Hackett.Google Scholar
Bertinetto, P. M., Bianchi, V., Higginbotham, J. & Squartini, M. (eds.) (1995). Temporal reference, aspect and actionality, Vol. 1: Semantic and syntactic perspectives. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Binnick, R. I. (1991). Time and the verb: a guide to tense and aspect. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (1987). The aspectual nature of states and habits. Folia Linguistica 21: 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (1988). The development of aspectual systems: aspectualizers and post-verbal particles (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (1991). The mass/count distinction and aktionsart: the grammar of iteratives and habituals. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 6: 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (1995). The aktionsart of deverbal nouns in English. In Bertinetto, et al. , 27–42.Google Scholar
Brömser, B. (1985). Aktionsart in Nomina und Nominalen. In Burkhardt, A. & Körner, K. H. (eds.), Pragmantax: Akten des 20. Linguistischen Kolloquiums Braunschweig. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 71–83.Google Scholar
Bunt, H. C. (1985). Mass terms and model-theoretic semantics (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, L. (1981). Aspect and quantification. In Tedeschi, P. J. & Zaenen, A. (eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 14: Tense and aspect. New York: Academic Press. 31–64.Google Scholar
Chung, S. & Timberlake, A. (1985). Tense, aspect and mood. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 202–58.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect: an introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curme, G. O. (1931). Syntax, Vol. 2 of A grammar of the English language. Boston: D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
Declerck, R. (1977). Aspect and the bounded/unbounded (telic/atelic) distinction. Linguistics 17: 761–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, R. (1991). Tense in English: its structure and use in discourse. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Depraetere, I. (1995a). The effect of temporal adverbials on (a)telicity and (un)boundedness. In Bertinetto, et al. , 43–53.Google Scholar
Depraetere, I. (1995b). On the necessity of distinguishing between (un)boundedness and (a)telicity. Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1991). A new approach to English grammar, on semantic principles. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar: the semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague's PTQ (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 7). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrich, V. (1991). Nominalisierungen. In von Stechow, A. & Wunderlich, D. (eds.), Semantik: ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. 441–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filip, H. (1993). Aspect, situation types and nominal reference. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Freed, A. F. (1979). The semantics of English aspectual complementation. Dordrecht, Boston and London: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galton, A. (1984). The logic of aspect. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Gillon, B. S. (1992). Towards a common semantics for English count and mass nouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 597–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, E. (1986). A compositional semantics for aktionsarten and NP reference in English. PhD dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Hoepelman, J. & Rohrer, C. (1980). On the mass-count distinction and the French imparfait and passé simple. In Rohrer, C. (ed.), Time, tense, and quantifiers: proceedings of the Stuttgart Conference on the Logic of Tense and Quantification (Linguistische Arbeiten, 83). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 85–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures (Current Studies in Linguistics, 18). Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1991). Parts and boundaries. Cognition 41: 9–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1942). A modern English grammar on historical principles, part IV: Morphology. With the assistance of Christophersen, P., Haislund, N. & Schibsbye, K.. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Bartsch, R., van Benthem, J. & van Emde Boas, P. (eds.), Semantics and contextual expression (Groningen–Amsterdam Studies in Semantics, 11). Dordrecht and Providence, RI: Foris. 75–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Sag, I. A. & Szabolcsi, A. (eds.), Lexical matters (CSLI Lecture Notes, 24). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language Information. 29–53.Google Scholar
Krifka, M., Pelletier, F. J., Carlson, G. N., ter Meulen, A., Link, G. & Chierchia, G. (1995). Genericity: an introduction. In Carlson, G. N. & Pelletier, F. J. (eds.), The generic book. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. 1–124.Google Scholar
Landman, F. (1989). Groups, I. Groups, II. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 559–605, 723–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasersohn, P. (1995). Plurality, conjunction and events (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 55). Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. (1969). Towards a semantic description of English (Longmans' Linguistics Library). London and Harlow: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: a lattice-theoretical approach. In Bäuerle, R., Schwarze, C., and von Stechow, A. (eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language. Berlin: de Gruyter. 302–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchand, H. (1969). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: a synchronic-diachronic approach. 2nd edn.Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Moens, M. Tense aspect and temporal reference. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Moens, M. & Steedman, M. (1988). Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics 14.2: 15–28.Google Scholar
Mourelatos, A. (1978). Events, processes, and states. Linguistics and Philosophy 2: 415–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paprotté, W. (1988). A discourse perspective on tense and aspect in standard Modern Greek and English. In Rudzka-Ostyn, , 447–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English: a study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Prince, E. (1972). A note on aspect in English: the take a walk construction. In Plötz, S. (ed.), Transformationelle Analyse. Frankfurt: Athenäum. 409–20.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (ed.) (1988). Topics in cognitive linguistics (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 50). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger (1996). Pluralities (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 61). Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. S. (1986). A speaker-based approach to aspect. Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. S. (1991). The parameter of aspect (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 43). Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, G. (1991). The phrasal type ‘to have a look’ in Modern English. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 19: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1988). The relation of grammar to cognition. In Rudzka-Ostyn, , 165–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, B. (1977). Tense and continuity. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, H. J. (1972). On the compositional nature of the aspects (Foundations of Language, Supplementary Series, 15). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, H. J. (1989). Aspectual classes and aspectual composition. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 39–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, H. J. (1993). A theory of aspectuality: the interaction between temporal and atemporal structure (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, C. (1994). Change in homogeneity in verbal and nominal reference. In Bache, C., Basbøll, H., and Lindberg, C-E. (eds.), Tense, aspect and action: empirical and theoretical contributions to language typology (Empirical Approaches to Language, 12). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 139–64.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1982). Why can you have a drink when you can't have an eat? Language 58: 753–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar