A G & ARNIM VON STECHOW - uni-tuebingen.deastechow/Handouts/Petersburg_adjuncts... · The SOT parameter applies to dependencies between matrix and subordinate tenses. Grønn/Stechow,

Grønn/Stechow, St. Petersburg 02.06.2010

1

ADJUNCT TENSE AND THE SOT PARAMETER ATLE GRØNN & ARNIM VON STECHOW

1. PLOT This talk treats the interpretation of tense in adjunct clauses in English and Russian

(relative clauses, before/after/when-clauses). Each finite sentence has a temporal

center, which may be regarded as a pronoun1: N (Present, “now”), PRO (“Zero tense”),

Tpro (anaphoric tense). PRO is confined to complements of attitudes and other

intensional contexts. The temporal center of adjunct clauses has to be Tpro or N. N is

the trivial case; adjuncts are interpreted like matrix clauses then. We are interested in

Tpro-examples. Then the embedded tense is bound by some higher tense. Russian

adjuncts behave similar to their English counterparts, but there are differences.

1. English has a shifted reading in Present relatives embedded under will. Russain

Present relatives under budet don’t have a shifted reading. This follows from our SOT

parameter.

2. English has Present under Future in before-clauses, Russian doesn’t. It would

be nice to relate this feature to the first one. But the construction seems to be an

idiosyncrasy of English. The syntax of Russian adjunct clauses shows overt parts that had

to be stipulated for English as covert in earlier papers.

3. Examples that require a Future Perfect or a Pluperfect in English have a simple

Future and a simple Past in Russian respectively. This follows from our assumption that

Russian allows the insertion of a covert Past.

Essential for the plot: Semantic tenses are decomposed into a relative and a

pronominal part; formation of temporal abstracts by PRO-movement, feature

transmission under binding.

2. TENSE THEORY The tense theory we are developing and exploring is this. Each finite sentence has a tense

projection TP. The head T’ is split into two parts: (a) a relative semantic tense like P(ast),

1 Generalisation of ideas in (Partee, 1973).


2

F(uture) and PRES(ent) and (b) a prononominal semantic tense, the temporal center of

the clause, which may be N (“now”), denoting the speech time, Tpro (an anaphoric

pronoun bound be a higher tense) or PRO (a zero tense). The relative tenses have the

standard “Priorian” meanings, i.e. Past means “there is a time before the center time”,

Future means “there is a time after the center time” and PRES means “there is a time

identical to the center time”.

(1) Temporal Structure

The T-center is the same in the languages we have studied. The distribution of the

pronominal tenses is free, but limitations follow from the syntactic environment, as we

shall see. The relative tenses show variation. English has only Past (and occasionally a

covert Future), while Russian has Past, Future and PRES. All the semantic tenses under

T’ are covert. Their presence is made visible by features: the semantic tenses P and F

have the features [iP], [iF], respectively. PRES and N have the feature [iN]. Features are

passed to a verb under semantic binding in the form [uP], [uF] and [uN]. There they have

to agree with the inherent morphological feature of the verb.

(2) [P N]i Masha spala(ti)/*spit

uP uN

iP--------------------uP

The semantic Past binds the temporal variable of spala, transmits its feature uP, which

agrees with the inherent feature of the verb. If we had the present form spit, we would

have a feature conflict. (N as the meaning of Present is due to (Kamp, 1971), “Zero

Tense” is due to (Heim, 1994a); the correlation with PRO is found in (Kratzer, 1998);

Tpro is implicit in (Kusumoto, 1999) ; PRESENT is due to (Ogihara, 1996); P and F are

folklore and attributed to Prior, though we were not able to find the original references.)

3. INTRODUCTION TO SOT


3

Verbs of attitude like believed, said and temporal auxiliaries like will/budet shift the

evaluation time as well. They are temporal quantifiers. In our Oslo talk (2009) we

proposed the SOT-parameter to account for the different distribution of tenses in

subordinate sentences in SOT versus non-SOT languages.

The SOT-parameter

A language L is an SOT-language if and only if the verbal quantifiers of L

transmit temporal features.

(3)

(3R) Он сказал, что живет под Москвой (Viktor Pelevin, Pokolenie P)

(3E) He said he was living just outside Moscow in the village of Rastorguevo

(3N) Han fortalte at han bodde utenfor Moskva

The difference in tense choice follows from the SOT-parameter. Said is a verbal

quantifier and transmits its Past-feature to the embedded ∅-tense, because English is an

SOT-language. ∅-tense binds the embedded verb was and determines its morphology.

Since the embedded sentence is tenseless, we have simultaneity.

Fig.1 a. PAST He said ∅-tense he was living outside Moscow (English)

|________|______|_______| (non-local agreement)

b. PAST On skazal chto ∅-tense PRES zhivet pod Moskvoj (Russian)

|_________| |______|______| (local agreement)

In a non-SOT language like Russian, the verbal quantifier skazal doesn’t transmit its

Past feature. To express simultaneous interpretation, Russian has the semantically inert

relative PRESent, which binds the temporal variable of zhivet and licenses its

morphology. The analysis with relative PRESENT is standard ((Ogihara, 1989a),

(Kusumoto, 1999), (Schlenker, 1999) (von Stechow, 2003)), the feature transmission

mechanism and its blocking by the SOT-parameter is our addition.

3.1. Dependent vs. independent tense

The SOT parameter applies to dependencies between matrix and subordinate tenses.


4

An illustration from complement tense:

(4)

(4E) Wasn’t it the ancient Romans who said that everything was in a process of

eternal flux? (dependent – tense agreement) (Geddes, “De Sade’s Valet”,

2000)

(4F) Les vieux Grecs ne disaientPAST,IMPF-ils pas que tout estPRES en perpétuel

changement? (independent) (Fournier, “Le valet de Sade”, 1998)

(4R) Razve drevnie rimljane ne govoriliPAST,IMPF, chto vse nepreryvno

izmenjaetsjaPRES? (dependent or independent) (Gorlina, “Katalog Latura”,

2004)

For the analysis of tense in complement clauses, i.e., tense under attitudes, we refer to

(Grønn and von Stechow, 2010).

Important: The SOT parameter applies directly only to dependent tense.

4. ADJUNCT TENSE: THE DATA Two different types of constructions: (i) Tense in relative clauses; (ii) tense in adverbial

clauses, notably before/after/when-clauses.

4.1. Tense in Relative Clauses

With a Past tense matrix verb, English and Russian relative clauses mostly behave in a

similar way (but different from Japanese, see (Kusumoto, 1999: chap. 2)).

Present under Past: Simultaneous reading available?

English Russian

Relatives * *

(5) a. Mary talked to a boy who is crying. (morphology: Past + Pres)


5

deictic√, simultaneous*

b. Маша встретила мальчика, который плачет. (morphology: Past + Pres)

deictic√, simultaneous*

Past under Past: simultaneous/independent available?

English Russian

Relatives √ √

(6) a. Mary talked to a boy who was crying. (morphology: Past + Past)

Independent, simultaneous

b. Маша встретила мальчика, который плакал. (morphology: Past + Past)

Independent, simultaneous

Present under Future: Simultaneous/independent reading available?

English Russian

Relatives √ *

(7) a. Mary will buy a fish that is alive. (Ogihara, 1989b)

ST = MT

b. Masha kupit rybu, kotoraja zhivet v Bergenskom akvariume

only deictic

Russian expresses simultaneity in the future with a Future\Future construction:

(8R) sultan ne ostavitFUT,PF beznakazanno toTHAT udovol’stviePLEASURE,

kotorymREL.PRON poteshatsjaFUT,PF molodcy. (Gogol’, “Taras Bul’ba”, 1842)

(8E) the Sultan will not permit that which delights our young men to go unpunished.

(Hogarth, “Taras Bulba”, 1918) (Russian National Corpus)


6

4.2. Tense in Temporal Adverbial Clauses (before/after/when-clauses) Again, the most interesting data come from future constructions. (Ogihara, 1996: 5.5)

quoting (Stump, 1985) provides the following paradigm.

(9) after/before under Future in English

a. John will leave before/after Mary leaves.

b. John will leave before/after Mary has left.

c. John will leave before/after Mary will leave.

d. John will leave before/after Mary will have left.

e. *John will leave before/after Mary left.

According to (Stump, 1985) (and Ogihara) (9c) (and therefore (9d) are ungrammatical

or highly degraded). Our own informants find (9c) unproblematic, above all the elliptic

version (…before/after Mary will).

• If MT is future, we typically find Present under before.

(10) Mary left before/after John arrived. (morphology: Past + Past)

The Russian paradigm:

(11) a. Ваня ушел после/ до того как ушла Маша. (morphology: Past + Past)

b. Ваня уйдет после/ до того как уйдет Маша. (morphology: Pres-Pf + Pres-

Pf)

• In Russian, the temporal adjunct has the same tense as that in the main clause.

before/after-adjuncts

English Russian

MT ST MT ST

before-clause fut pres (perf) fut fut

past past past past

after-clause fut pres perf fut fut

past past past past

(MT = main tense, ST = subordinate tense)

• Russian tenses agree.

• English tenses may agree, but English has Present\Future, too.


7

•

The patterns for Russian and English when-clauses are similar:

(12R) Ja eto skazhuFUT emu, kogda on priedetFUT. (Tolstoj, “Anna Karenina”, 1877)

(13E) I'll tell him that when he comes. (Garnett, “Anna Karenin”, 1901) (The RuN corpus)

5. ANALYSIS: TENSE IN RELATIVE CLAUSES What is the T-center? Since a relative clause restricts a noun, PRO is not a candidate.

The center can be N (“now”) or Tpro. We stipulate that Tpro is free in its sentence but

obligatorily bound by some higher tense. The idea that the center of a relative may be

an anaphoric pronoun is implicit in (Kusumoto, 1999). The present formulation is due

to Irene Heim (p.c).

5.1. English relatives

(14) Mary will buy a fish that is alive. (Ogihara, 1989b)

a. ST = MT (simultaneous)

b. ST = s* (deictic)

(15) Simultaneous

N λ1 will(t1) λ2 M. buy(t2) a fish WH3 Tpro2 λ4 is(t4) λ5 x3 alive(t5)

iN uN uN uN uN

= (∃t > s*)(∃x)[fish(x) & alive(x,t) & buy(Mary,x,t)]

• will is a verbal quantifier. It transmits its temporal feature to the variable it binds.

The deictic reading requires binding of Tpro to the matrix N:

(16) N λ1 will(t1) λ2 M. buy(t2) a fish WH3 Tpro1 λ4 is(t4) λ5 x3 alive(t5)

= (∃t > s*)(∃x)[fish(x) & alive(x,s*) & buy(Mary,x,t)]

The semantics is different, but the feature transmission is as before. The same result is

obtained if we have N instead of Tpro in the relative clause.

5.2. Russian Relatives

Russian relatives are analysed like the English ones with the exception that Present

under Future has to be deictic.

(17) Synthetic Future (Russian)


8

Perfective Present expresses Future:

[[ F ]] = λt.λP.(∃t’)[t’ > t & P(t’)], feature iF

(18) Маша купит рыбу, которая живёт в Бергенском аквариуме.2

ST = s* (deictic)

Why is ST = MT, i.e. the Ogihara interpretation, not possible?

(19) *N λ1 F(t1) λ2 …buy-fut(t2)…WH Tpro2 λ3…lives(t3)…

iF uF uN—uF !

• To get the Ogihara reading, Tpro must be bound then by F, but unlike English

will, F does doesn’t transmit uN but checks uF. Thus the temporal variable of

lives (=живёт) has the feature uF. This feature should agree with the inherent

feature uN of the verb, but it doesn't and we have a feature mismatch.

• This difference between Russian and English follows from the SOT-parameter.

• We have to make sure that the simultaneous intepretation is not generated by

insertion of PRES. There are two ways of doing that: (a) Use PRES only if you

have to, i.e. there are no other ways to express the intended meaning; (b) The

argument of PRES is PRO by stipulation.

Attention: You can have forward shifing under Future in Russian relatives, but then you

have to use F in the relative:

(20E) "In that case," replied Glinda, "I shall merely ask you to drink a powerful

draught which will cause you to forget all the magic you have ever learned ".

[L. Frank Baum. The Marvelous Land of Oz]

(20R) - Тогда,―ответила Глинда,―я всего лишь попрошу-pf-pres тебя выпить

волшебный напиток, от которого ты забудешь-pf-pres все свое колдовство.

(Russian National Corpus)

2This sentence is an adoption of Ogihara’s original example. People don’t like it much.

Note that we added the locative adverb “in the acquarium of Bergen” to inforce an

episodic interpretation


9

N λ1 F(t1) λ2 ja poproshu(t2) tebja PRO λt3 PRO vypit’(t3) napitok ot

iF---------------------uF

kotorogo Tpro3 λ4 F(t4) λ5 ty zabudesh(t5) vse

iF----------------------uF

The time variable of the embedded F is bound by the zero tense. F binds the embedded

verb and does the forward shifting.

6. ANALYSIS: BEFORE/AFTER/WHEN-CLAUSES We assume an analysis for after/before following (von Stechow, 2002) and (Beaver

and Condoravdi, 2004): the prepositions are relations between two times t and t’ and

mean that t is after/before t’. t when t’ means t = t’ (or t ⊆ t’ or t overlaps t’). Consider

(21) Vanya left before/after Mary left.

Vanya ushel do/posle togo kak Masha ushla.

Inspired by (Heim, 1997) and (Beaver and Condoravdi, 2004) we analyse the

complement of before/after as:

“the earliest time that is at a past time and Mary leaves at that time”.

To get this, we need a lot of covert structure, namely the EARLIEST-operator, a sort of

definite article, a temporal at-PP that locates the reference time of the complement and

a WH-movement that creates the temporal property, which the EARLIEST operator

maps to a particular time. The surface syntax of English doesn’t provide the necessary

hints that we need all that. Russian syntax is transparent in this respect:

(22) Complement of before/after in English and Russian


10

= the earliest t2 such that (∃t1) t1 < ti & t1 at t2 & Masha leaves at t1

= the earliest t with t < ti & Masha leaves at t

togo ‘this’ gives evidence that the complement of the preposition is a definite term. The

wh-word kak shows that the argument of the determiner EARLIEST is formed by wh-

movement. English has these two things covert. The base position of the wh-pronoun is

the covert AT-PP.

The EARLIEST-operator, which makes the complement of after/before definite,

is due to (Beaver and Condoravdi, 2004).

(23) EARLIESTC: type (it)i


11

[[ EARLIESTC ]] g = λPit.the earliest time t in g(c) such that P.

= the t, such that C(t) & P(t) & (∀t’)[C(t’) & P(t’) → t < t’]

Apart from the differences in abstractness there is no cucial structural difference

between Engl. and Russ. past\past constructions. So the corresponding sentences are

analysed alike.

(24) Ваня ушел после/до того как ушла Маша. (morphology: Past + Past)

John left after/before Mary left

N λ1 P(t1) λ2 Vanja ushel(t2) t2 posle/do EARLC kak3 Tpro1 λ5 P(t5) λ4 t4 AT

t3 Masha ushla(t4)

= (∃t2 < s*) Vanja leaves at t2 & t2 > (<) the earliest t3: t3 < s* & Masha leaves at

t3

For the Future\Future construction we have a difference in feature checking: in Russian

the [uF] feature of the embedded verb is licensed by a local F(uture). In English, the

Present feature [uN] of the embedded will is checked by the matrix N (alternatively a

local N).

(25) Ваня уйдет после/ до того как уйдет Маша. (morphology: Pf-pres + Pf-pres)

N λ1 F(t1) λ2 Vanja ujdet(t2) t2 posle/do

EARLC kak3 Tpro1 λ4 F(t4) λt5 t5 AT t3 Masha ujdet(t5)

iF------------------------------uF = (∃t2 > s*) John leaves at t2 & t2 >(<) the earliest t3: t3 in C & t3 > s* & Mary

leaves at t3

(26) John will leave before Mary will leave

N λ1 will(t1) λ2 John leave(t2) t2 before/after

iN---------------------------------------------------

EARL WH3 Tpro1 λ4 will(t4) λt5 t5 AT t3 Mary leave(t5)

-----------------uN---------uN

For the examples we obtain the same result if we assume N instead of Tpro in the

adjunct clause. But in the general case, N is not possible as T-center, because we can

embed the adjunct under an attitude and get a bound reading:

(27) John said that he left before Mary left.


12

Here a Tpro, which is bound by the matrix PRO, is obligatory in the adjunct.

Problem for this account: present\future in English cannot be generated

(28) John will leave before/after Mary leaves [= (9a)]

This looks as if the [uN]-feature of leaves were licensed by the the matrix N via

transmission of will, but this doesn’t make sense semantically:

(29) N λ1 will(t1) λ2 John leave(t2) t2 before/after

EARL WH3 Tpro2 AT t3 M. leaves(t3)

(∃t2 > s*) John leaves at t2 & t2 <(>) the earliest t3: t2 = t3 & M. leaves at t3

Contradictory! t2 should be before (after) t2!

(30) Repair mechanism: SOT-rule (Ogihara, 1989b) (optional)

A semantic tense may be deleted if c-commanded by the same semantic

tense. This means that the deleted tense is replaced by an existential

quantifier ∃. (Verbal quantifiers don’t qualify as semantic tenses.)

(31) Present\Future

N λ1 will(t1) λ2 John leave(t2) t2 before/after

EARLC WH3 N ∃ λ4 t4 AT t3 Mary leaves(t4)

iN--------------------------------uN

= (∃t2 > s*) John enters the room at t2 & t2 </> the earliest t3 s.t. Mary leaves at

t3.

• We have to license the present morphology prior to tense deletion. Or we can

say that ∃ has the feature iN.

• Pres\Future is the only residual case we are aware of that requires Ogihara’s

SOT-rule. All the other cases of tense agreement have been reduced to feature

transmission under binding.

7. ADJUNCT TENSE EMBEDDED UNDER ATTITUDES/MODALS Our theory makes the following predictions: The tense center of the highest sentence

under the attitude is PRO, i.e. eventually λi. This tense binds the Tpro in the subordinate


13

adjunct. The difference in tense distribution follows from the SOT-parameter.

1. In English, PRO gets its temporal feature via the attitude predicate from the

(relative) matrix tense and transmits it to the Tpro of the adjunct.

2. In Russian, PRO doesn’t inherit a temporal feature from the matrix. Therefore

the feature of the adjunct tense must be checked by the reative tense in the highest

embedded clause.

7.1. English

Ogihara’s evidence that Past in relatives must sometimes be bound:

(32) John thought that he would buy a fish that was still alive.

N λ0 P(t0) λ1 John thought(t1) PRO λ2 would(t2) λ3 he buy(t3)

iP------------------------uP-------------------uP--------------uP

a fish WH4 Tpro3 λ5 was(t5) λ6 t4 alive(t6)

-----------------uP----------uP

• The variable of was in the relative inherits its feature from the matrix P via

binding. Note that the binding chain goes through the infinitive buy, which has no

inherent temporal feature.

(33) a. John said he would leave before Mary would leave.

b. * John said he would leave after Mary would leave.

Our informant didn’t like (33b). Since the after version of (9c) is grammatical, this

sentence should be acceptable as well. We have no explanation for the contrast.

7.2. Russian

The Russian equivalent to Ogihara’s sentence seems to require the following analysis:

(34) John thought Mary would give birth to a son that had blue eyes.


14

Ваня подумал, что Маша родит сына, у которого будут голубые глаза (как

и у отца)

N λ0 P(t0) λ1 Vanja podumal(t1)

λ2 PRES(t2) λ3 F(t3) λ4 Masha rodit(t4) syna kotorogo5 Tpro2 λ6 budut(t6)

iF-----------------------uF

iN----------------------------------------------------------------uN--------------uN

λ7 BYT’(t7) u t5 golubye glaza

Here budut is bound by the local PRES via Tpro. Hence its present morphology is

justified.

We give some authentic (and complicated) examples from parallel corpora below:

The independence of tense in Russian adjuncts may give a different tense in the

adjunct than in the matrix (cf. nravitsja (ipf-pres) and okazyval (ipf-past) in (35R):

(35E) And Bou-Bou discovered that she liked having him there, liked the gentlemanly

attention he paid her and his talent for figures.

(35G) Bou-Bou bemerkte, daß sie es mochte, wenn er im Haus war; ihr gefiel die

höfliche Aufmerksamkeit, die er ihr entgegenbrachte, obendrein hatte er ein

Talent für Zahlen.

(35R) Бу-Бу обнаружила, что ей нравится его общество, вежливое внимание,

которое он ей оказывал, и талант к расчетам. (RuN corpus)

N λ0 P(t0) λ1 Bu-Bu obnaruzhyvala(t1) chto λ2 PRES(t2) λ4 ej

iN-------------

nravitsja(t4)…vnimanie kotoroe5 Tpro0 λ6 P(t6) λ7 on t5 ej okazyval(t7)…

-----------uN iP-----------------------------uP

(36E) He burnt the bedroom walls and the cosmetics chest because he wanted to

change everything, the chairs, the tables, and in the dining-room the

silverware and plastic dishes, everything that showed that he had lived here


15

in this empty house with a strange woman who would forget him tomorrow,

who had gone and quite forgotten him already, listening to her Seashell radio

[Ray Bradbury. Fahrenheit 451] (Russian National Corpus)

N λ1 P(t1) λ2 he burned(t2) everything WH3 Tpro1 λ4 P(t4) λ5 t3 showed(t5) that

iP-------------------uP iP-------------------uP----

λ6 had(t6) λ7 he lived(t7) with a woman who8 Tpro6 λ7 would(t7) λ9 t8

---------uP--------------------------------------------uP---------------uP

forget(t9) him….

(36R) Он сжег стены спальни и туалетный столик жены,

He burnt walls of-bedroom and toilet table of-wife

потому что жаждал все это изменить,

because that he-wanted all this to-change

он сжег стулья, столы, а в столовой — ножи, вилки и посуду из пластмассы

he burnt chairs, tables, and in dining-room – knives, forks and dishes of plastic –

все, что напоминало-ipf-past о том, как он жил-ipf-past здесь,

all that rembered about that how he-lived here,

в этом пустом доме, рядом с чужой ему женщиной,

in this empty house, alongside with strange for-him woman

которая забудет-pf-pres его завтра,

who will-forget him tomorrow

которая ушла-pf-past

who left

и уже забыла-pf-past его

and already forgot him

и мчится-Ipf-pres сейчас одна по городу

and running now alone in town


16

N λ1 P(t1) λ2 szheg(t2) vse WH3 Tpro1 λ4 P(t4) λ5 t3 napominalo(t5) kak

iP--------------uP iP------------------------uP

PRO λ6 P(t6) λ7 on zhil(t7) s zhenshchinoj kotoraja8 Tpro6 λ7 F(t7) λ9 t8

iP-----------------uP iF--------

zabudet(t9) ego….

----------uF

8. INSERTION OF COVERT PAST IN RUSSIAN A complication for Russian arises from the fact that we can sometimes insert a relative

Past under Past or Future to obtain a semantic Pluperfect or Future Perfect; cf.

(Paslawska and von Stechow, 2003), (Grønn, 2003). This insertion does not block or

affect feature transmission from above. Do we have evidence for a covert past in

Russian adjuncts? The evidence comes from tense under aspectual adverbs like uzhe

‘already’ or eshche ne ‘not yet’.

(37) (Иннокентий наперед знал-ipf-past, как утром за завтраком они с восторгом

Innokentij in-advance knew, how in-morning during breakfast they with

pleasure

сообщат-pf-pres, что им обоим снился-ipf-past один и тот же сон ...

will-tell, that they both dreamt one and the same dream ...)

- Одинаковых снов не бывает-ipf-pres! - скажет-pf-pres им отец,

identical dreams not happen - will-tell them father,

который уже вернется-pf-pres с ночного дежурства

who already will-(have)-returned from night work

и будет завтракать-ipf-infinitive вместе с ними.

and BUDET eat-breakfast together with them

‘Innokentij knew in advance how tomorrow morning during breakfast they would tell with great pleasure that they both

had the same dream … Identical dreams do not happen, their father, who will eat breakfast together with them after

having returned from night work, will tell them.’

Uzhe ‘already’ is an aspectual adverbs that modify statives. “The father return” is an

achievement and not compatible with already:


17

(38) a. *The father will already return.

b. The father will already have returned.

The relative past auxiliary have (“Perfect”) is a stativizer, which converts the

achievement into a state. This shows that we have to insert a covert past in the

preceding construction (covert past underlined).

(39) N λ1 F(t1) λ5 THE father

[WH2 Tpro1 λ2 F(t2) λ3 uzhe P(t3) λ4 t2 return-pf-pres(t4)…] tell-pf-pres(t5)…

iF-------------------------------------------uF

Similarly “naberet” in the following example must be a “Future Perfect”.

(40) Мы договорились с экипажем, что я подойду к нему, когда самолет уже

наберет высоту [Кира Сурикова. Несладкий кофе (2003)]

(‘We made an agreement with the crew, that I would go to him (lit. ‘will go’)

when the plane already has left ground (lit. ‘will take hight’))

eshche ne ‘not yet’ works alike and therefore requires a covert Past.

(41) Я встаю на полчаса раньше, чтобы приготовить завтрак. Утром, да когда

еще не выспишься, движения не точны, разбалансированы ― то

опрокинешь соль, то заденешь рукавом халата чашку весов. [Михаил

Румер-Зараев. Диабет // «Звезда», 2000] (‘In the morning, when you still

have not woken up (lit. ‘still not will sleep through’) properly, your

movements are sloppy and unbalanced…’)

A possible Problem for feature control: Why does the verb in the relative clause exhibit

future morphology and not past morphology? Normally, a complex tense T’ transmits

the head feature, i.e. the feature of the relative tense. We stipulate:

(42) Transmission of Future feature (Russian)

If the bound variable of T’ has the feature [uF] then this feature is transmitted

instead of the head feature.


18

9. FORMAL DETAILS 9.1. The λ-language

We assume an intensional λ-language. “Intensional” means that expressions of type a

express meanings of type (sa), i.e., a-intensions. We need Heim & Kratzer’s rule

Intensional Functional Application (IFA). The syntax of the language is based on the

type e (individuals), i (times), s (worlds) and the usual functional types (ab). A model is

a structure (E, T, W, {0,1}, F), where E are the indidivuals, T the times, W the worlds,

{0,1} the truth values and F the function that interprets the lexicon. We have variables

for each type and the usual stuff.

(43) Recursive definition of the interpretation function [[ . ]] F,g

1. Let α be a lexical entry of type a . Then [[ α]] M,g = F(α).

2. Let x be a variable of type a. Then [[ x]] M,g = λw.g(x), g(x) in Da.

3. FA: Let α have type b and daughters β of type ab and γ of type a.

[[ α ]] M,g = λw.[[ β]] M,g (w)([[ γ]] M,g (w))

4. IFA: Let α have type b and daughters β of type (sa)b and γ of type a.

[[ α]] M,g = λw. [[ β]] M,g (w)([[ γ]] M,g)

5. PM: Let α have type a and daughters β and γ of the same type.

[[ α]] M,g = λw.λx.[[ β]] M,g (w)(x) & [[ γ]] M,g (w)(x)

6. Abstraction: Let x be a variable of type a and let α be an expression of type

b.

[[ λx α]] M,g = λw.λu ∈ Da.[[ α]] M,g[x/u](w)

9.2. Temporal structure of simple sentences

(44) Tenses

a. Deictic Present, type i: F(Ni) = λw.s* feature iN

b. Relative Present, type i(it,t): F(PRES) = λw.λt.λPit.(∃t’ = t)P(t’)

(Ogihara, 1995) feature iN

b. Past, type i(it,t): F(P) = λw.λt.λPit.(∃t’ < t)P(t’) (Heim, 1997)

feature iP

P is a relative tense. The argument of P is always N in matrix clauses. In subordinate


19

clauses, P can have a time variable t as argument that is bound by a higher tense or

locally bound by a λ-operator.

The relative PRES is semantically vacuous. It merely serves the purpose to check

present morphology in the subordinate construction. This tense exists in non-SOT

languages, but not in SOT languages.

(45) a. Masha spit

b. Masha spala

(46) Some lexical entries:

a. F(Mashae) = λw.Masha

b. F(spiti(et)) = λw.λt.λx.x sleeps in w at t. uN

F(spalai(et)) = λw.λt.λx.x sleeps in w at t. uP

spit/spala ‘is asleep/was asleep’ has a tenseless semantics! The morphology is checked

by a semantic tense. The time argument is the first by convention. At DS the time

argument is filled by the semantically empty pronoun PRO, which is moved for type

reasons at LF (PRO-theory of (Heim and Kratzer, 1998))

(47) Derivation of (45a)

DS: [TP N [VP Masha [spit PRO]]]

PRO-movement (with subsequent PRO deletion)

LF: [TP N PRO λ1 [VP Masha [spit t1]]]

= λw. Masha is asleep in w at s*

(48) Derivation of (45b)

DS: [TP [T P N] [VP Masha [spala PRO]]]

PRO-movement (with subsequent PRO deletion)

LF: [TP N λ0 P(t0) PRO λ1 [VP Masha [spala t1]]]

= λw. (∃t < s*) Masha is asleep in w at t

(49) Future auxiliary

budet: type i(it,t) inherent feature: uN; no interpretable feature

λw.λt.λPit.(∃t’)[t’ > t & P(t’)]

(50) Masha budet spat’


20

DS: Masha [TP N [budet PRO [VP ti [spat’ PRO]]

LF: [TP N PRO λ1[budet t1 λ2[VP Masha [spat’ t2]]

= λw. (∃t > s*) Masha is asleep in w at t

Like the English will, budet is a present form.

(51) Simple Future: feature iF

[[ F ]] = λw.λt.λPit.(∃t’)[t’ > t & P(t’)]

This is a covert operator that checks the future morphology (“pf present”) of the verb.

(52) Ivan pozvonit

[TP N λ0 F t0 λ1 [VP Ivan pozvonit t1]]

= λw.(∃t’)[t’ > s* & Ivan calls in w at t’]

9.3. Feature Theory (Zeijlstra, 2004) and others: There are two sorts of features, interpretable ones [iF] and

uninterpretable ones [uF]. Interpretable features check the uninterpretable ones. The

current theory has been introduced in (von Stechow, 2008).

Finite verb forms have inherent uninterpretable temporal features. Present forms

of a verb have the feature [uN] “uninterpretable Present/Now”. The semantic Present N

has the feature [iN] “interpretable Present/Now”. Past forms of a verb have the feature

[uP] “uninterpretable Past”. The semantic Past tense P has the feature [iP].

(53) Some verb forms with spell-out:

Present: spit [uN]

Past: spala [uP]

Infinitive: spat’ (no inherent temporal feature)

Meaning of all these: λw.λt.λx. x is asleep at time t in w

(54) pozvonit [uF] (perfective aspect ignored)

λw.λt.λx. x calls at time t in w

(55) Feature transmission under semantic binding.


21

A semantic tense (P,N,F) transmits the uninterpretable version of the feature as

[uP]/[uN]/[uF] to the time variable it binds. If the variable is an argument of a

tensed verb form, the feature has to agree with the tense feature of the verb.

(Heim, 1994b), (Heim, 2005).

We assume the conventions for semantic binding out-lined in (Heim and Kratzer,

1998). In particular, a phrase or operator α may bind a variable via a λ-operator. λ-

abstracts are created by PRO- or WH-movement.

(56) Masha spala (DS) (not interpretable)

(57) Percolation of tense features

a. Features percolate along the head line.

b. The feature of a temporal variable either agrees with the inherent feature of

the head or it is transmitted to the head (and percolates to the phrase).

Since the semantic Past is the head of the semantic tense [P N], the feature [iP]

percolates to the phrase [P N].

(58) The LF (interpretable)


22

λw.(∃t < s*) Masha sleeps in w at t

The tree shows that the feature uP is both at the variable and the verb. We have

agreement there.

9.4. Temporal Centers Each finite clause has a temporal center, the pronominal tense.

(59) Temporal centers

a. Matrix clause: N (deictic “now”).

b. Complements of attitudes, antecedent of conditional: ∅-tense (“PRO” or

“TPRO”).

c. Adjuncts (relative clauses, temporal adjunct clauses): Tpro or N

(60) Binding conditions

a. N is an R-expression and therefore free.

b. PRO is locally bound by an attitude predicate or by a conditional modal (e.g.

antecedent of WOULD).

c. Tpro is bound by a superordinate semantic tense.

The temporal center of a main clause refers; the temporal center of the complement

of an attitude and that of the antecedent of a conditional is vacuous; the temporal

center of an adjunct is anaphoric or deictic.


23

(61) Complement of an attidude

Ivan dumaet, chto Masha spala

= λwλt.(∃t’ < t) Masha sleeps in w at t’

(62) A relative clause


24

Ivan videl devushky, kotoraja spala

= λwλx.(∃t < ti) x sleeps in w at t

(63) Temporal adjunct clauses

Vladimir pokinul zal do/posle togo kak ushla Masha

See (22)

9.5. Integration of Aspect Our talk makes the simplified assumption that a tense binds the time variable of a verb.

For the examples discussed this does no harm. More accurately, tenses bind the time

variable of an aspect operator (e.g. PF (Perfective)/ IP (Imperfective)). The aspect

operator binds the event variable of the verb and thereby checks the aspect feature. At the

same time, the aspect operator transmits the temporal features to the bound aspect

variable and thereby checks the temporal and aspectual morphology.

(64) a. Vanja el arbuz (PAST-IP) ‘V. was eating a melon’


25

[TP N λ1 P(t1) λ2 [AspP IP(t2) λ3[VP Vanja el arbuz(e3)]]]

iP-----------------uP----------------------------uP

iIP------------------------------uIP

= λw.(∃t < s*)(∃e) τ(e) ⊃ t & Vanja eating a melon in e in w

b. Vanja s’’el arbuz (PAST-PF) ‘V. ate (up) a melon’

[TP N λ1 P(t1) λ2 [AspP PF(t2) λ3[VP Vanja s’’el arbuz (e3)]]]

iP----------------uP--------------------------------uP

iPF----------------------------------uPF

= λw.(∃t < s*)(∃e) τ(e) ⊆ t & Vanja eating up a melon in e in w

c. Vanja s’’edal arbuz ‘Vanja was eating (up) a melon’ (secondary imperfective)

[TP N λ1 P(t1) λ2 [AspP IP(t2) λ3[VP Vanja s’’edal arbuz (e3)]]]

iP----------------uP-----------------------------------uP

iIP-------------------------------------uIP

= λw.(∃t < s*)(∃e) τ(e) ⊃ t & Vanja eating up a melon in e in w

(65) Verb entries accommodated

a. el features [uP] [uIP]

λwλeλxλy.y eats x in e in w

b. s’’el features [uP] [uPF]

λwλeλxλy.y eats up x in e in w

c. s’’edal features [uP] [uIP]

λwλeλxλy.y eats up x in e in w

Same lexical meaning for the imperfective (c) as the perfective (b)!

(66) Aspects, type (vt, it)

a. [[ PF ]] = λPvtλt.(∃e) τ(e) ⊆ t & P(e)

cf. (Klein, 1994), (Paslawska and von Stechow, 2003)

b. [[ IP ]] = λPvtλt.(∃e) τ(e) ⊃ t & P(e)

cf. (Bennett and Partee, 1972), (Klein, 1994)

τ(e) is the running time of e. The semantics for IP ignores the imperfective paradox,

habituality, two-way readings etc. (Grønn, 2003) uses temporal overlap in the semantics

of IP. He tries to unify the different uses of the Russian imperfective with pragmatic


26

means (competition with the Perfective, size of the reference time).

The entries for the verbs in (65) should make clear that we separate the semantic

constribution of aspect (“viewpoint aspect”) from the semantic contribution of the

prefixes, which determine the Aktionsart of the VP (“verbal aspect”). For instance, the

prefix s’’- says that the VP should be telic, i.e. lacking the subinterval property (cf.

(Krifka, 1989)). This is the contribution to the lexical meaning represented as “up” in the

translation to English. Telic verbs have the feature [uPF] as a default value. The feature

points to the semantic perfective operator PF, which takes scope over the entire VP and is

separated from the verb. Perfective verbs can typically be imperfectivized by the

secondary imperfective, here the suffix –da. This suffix has no lexical meaning. It simply

replaces the feature [uPF] by [uIP]. Note that the imperfective VP in (64c) is telic as well.

So there is no straightforward semantic connection between telicity and perfectivity.

German prefix verbs are much like the Russian ones, but German has no grammaticalized

viewpoint aspect, and this is a main difference between the two languages. Thus, we

share the views on Slavic aspect expressed by Tatevosov in his St. Petersburg talk (2010)

and of other scholars mentioned by him (e.g. Isachenko, W. Klein).

LITERATURE Beaver, D, and Condoravdi, C. 2004. Before and After in a Nutshell. Ms., handout from

talks presented at Cornell, NYU, MIT and UCSC,S&B9. Bennett, M., and Partee, B. 1972. Toward the Logic of Tense and Aspect in English:

System Development Corporation, Santa Monica, California. Grønn, Atle. 2003. The Semantics and Pragmatics of the Russian Factual Imperfective,

Faculty of Arts, University of Oslo: Doctor Artium Thesis. Grønn, Atle, and von Stechow, Arnim. 2010. Complement Tense in Contrast: The SOT-

Parameter in Russian and English. In Russian in Contrast, ed. A. Grønn. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo.

Heim, Irene. 1994a. Comments on Abusch's theory of tense: Manuscript, MIT. Heim, Irene. 1994b. Puzzling reflexive pronouns in de se reports: Handout from Bielefeld

conference. Heim, Irene. 1997. Tense in compositional semantics: MIT lecture notes. Heim, Irene. 2005. Features on bound pronouns. Ms. Cambridge/Mass. Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar: Blackwell

Textbooks in Linguistics. Oxford/Malden, MA: Blackwell. Kamp, Hans. 1971. Formal Properties of "now". Theoria 37:227-273. Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in Language. London, New York: Routledge. Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. More Structural Analogies Between Pronouns and Tenses. In

SALT VIII, eds. D. Strolovitch and A. Lawson. Cambridge, Mass.: Ithaca: CLC-


27

Publications. Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal Reference, Temporal Constitution and Quantification in

Event Semantics. In Semantics and Contextual Expression, eds. R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem and van Emde Boas, 75-115. Dordrecht: Foris.

Kusumoto, Kiyomi. 1999. Tense in embedded contexts, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts at Amherst: Ph.D. dissertation.

Ogihara, T. 1995. The Semantics of Tense in Embedded Clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 26:663-679.

Ogihara, T. 1996. Tense, Attitudes, and Scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 1989a. Non-factual before and Adverbs of Quantificatio. In SALT V,

eds. Galloway and Simons. Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 1989b. Temporal Reference in English and Japanese: University of

Texas at Austin. Partee, Barbara. 1973. Some Structural Analogies between Tenses and Pronouns in

English. Journal of Philosophy 70:601-609. Paslawska, Alla, and von Stechow, Arnim. 2003. Perfect Readings in Russian. In Perfect

Explorations, ed. Rathert Alexiadou, von Stechow. Berlin: Mouton de Guyter. Schlenker, Philippe. 1999. Propositional Attitudes and Indexicality: A Cross-Categorial

Approach, MIT: Ph.D Dissertation. Stump, Gregory. 1985. The Semantic Variability of Absolute Constructions: Synthese

Language Library. Dordrecht: Reidel. von Stechow, Arnim. 2002. Temporal Prepositional Phrases with Quantifiers: Some

Additions to Pratt and Francez (2001). Linguistics and Philosophy 25:40 pages. von Stechow, Arnim. 2003. Feature Deletion under Semantic Binding: Tense, Person,

and Mood under Verbal Quantifiers. Paper presented at NELS 33. von Stechow, Arnim. 2008. Tenses in Compositional Semantics. In The Expression of

Time in Language, ed. Wolfgang Klein, 30 Pages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2004. Sentential Negation and Negative Concord. Utrecht: LOT.

Documents

A G & ARNIM VON STECHOW - uni-tuebingen.deastechow/Handouts/Petersburg_adjuncts... · The SOT parameter applies to dependencies between matrix and subordinate tenses. Grønn/Stechow,