Durative Adverbials and Tense Properties in Italianastechow/AlexiadouRathertS… · Web view1979 Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Enç, Mürvet . 1986 Toward

Temporal homogeneity and the Italian Perfect*

Fabrizio Arosio

1. Introduction

In the literature about Italian, we find little agreement on the very basic meanings conveyed by Perfect sentences and if we look at more theoretical analyses, even this modicum of agreement disappears. One of the reasons for this confusing picture comes from the (vain) search for a non-ambigu-ous semantics of the “Perfect” which accounts uniformly for the different meanings conveyed by Perfect constructions (Bertinetto 1986, Giorgi and Pianesi 1997). In this paper I will explore a different perspective by looking at the Italian Perfect as authentically ambiguous (von Stechow 2002) be-tween different meanings.

The different meanings associated with the Italian tense forms have been analyzed either compositionally, in terms of covert aspectual opera-tions localizing the described eventuality within or including a relevant in-terval introduced by the semantic tense (von Stechow 2002), or, more gen-erally, in terms of different structures of quantification over events and/or times inherently associated with them (Giorgi and Pianesi 1997, 2000; Bonomi 1997, 1999). I will show that if we consider the distribution of du-rative adverbials this is not enough. I will propose that Italian tenses im-pose some conditions concerning the temporal homogeneity (Bennett and Partee 1978) of their complements and, in particular, that Perfect construc-tions should fulfill these conditions. In order to implement this idea, I will decompose the tense projection into a temporal variable, localizing the de-scribed eventuality in the flow of time, and an homogeneity condition on the interpretation of the tense complement. The idea is that tense looks at its complement and licenses it if it satisfies a condition of temporal homo-geneity: this is to say that tense itself has some influence in the aspectual interpretation of a sentence.

2. Italian facts

In Italian, durative per- and da-adverbials are found in complementary dis-tribution in state sentences1:

38 Fabrizio Arosio

per-adverbials da-adverbials

(1) a. ?? È buio per due ore. (2) a. È buio da due ore.‘It is dark for two hours.’ ‘It is dark since two hours.’PRESENTE PRESENTE

b. ?? Era buio per due ore. b. Era buio da due ore.‘It was dark for two hours.’ ‘It was dark since two hours.’IMPERFETTO IMPERFETTO

c. Fu buio per due ore. c. ?? Fu buio da due ore.‘It was dark for two hours.’ ‘It was dark since two hours.’PASSATO REMOTO PASSATO REMOTO

d. È stato buio per due ore. d. ?? È stato buio da due ore.‘It is been dark for two hours.’ ‘It is been dark since two hours.’PASSATO PROSSIMO PASSATO PROSSIMO

e. Era stato buio per due ore. e. ?? Era stato buio da due ore.‘It was been dark for two hours.’ ‘It was been d. since two hours.’PIUCCHEPERFETTO PIUCCHEPERFETTO

As shown by (1a-c), per-adverbials combine felicitously with the Pas-sato Remoto but not with the Presente and the Imperfetto; on the contrary, as you see from (2a-c), da-adverbials combine with the Presente and the Imperfetto but not with the Passato Remoto. Interestingly, the insertion of the Perfect changes the pattern of acceptability. As shown by the perfect sentences in (d) and (e), per modification is felicitous when the auxiliary bears Presente and Imperfetto morphology but da modification is bad in these cases. I will argue that some properties of Italian tenses are responsi-ble for these facts.2

3. The analysis in short

In order to account for the data in (1) and (2) I will assume that Da-adverbials combine with temporal predicates to give temporally ho-

mogeneous predicates Per-adverbials combine with temporal predicate to give temporally

non-homogeneous predicate Presente and Imperfetto require their complements to be temporally ho-

mogeneous Passato Remoto requires its complements to be temporally non-homo-

geneousThis explains the distribution in (a)-(c); moreover I will propose that

Temporal homogeneity and the Italian Perfect 39

the Perfect morphology in (d)-(e) is the spell-out of a semantic tense combining with a temporally non-homogeneous predicate.

This explains the distribution in (d)-(e).

4. Italian tenses

In order to implement this analysis, I will propose that the Italian tempo-ral system has two lexical entries in its inventory of tenses: a tense select -ing for temporally homogeneous predicates and a tense selecting for tempo-rally non-homogeneous predicates. The insight is that Imperfetto and Pre-sente are two forms of one and the same tense selecting for temporally ho-mogeneous predicates, while Passato Remoto and the Passato Prossimo are two tense forms selecting for temporally non-homogeneous predicates. This idea goes back to an observation of the ancient Latin grammarian Varro (116 B.C. - 27 B.C.), who argues (De Lingua Latina, X, 48) that we should assume a basic division of the Latin tense forms into two stems, In-fectum and Perfectum. According to Varro, while the Latin present and past-imperfective verbal forms (like lego (I read-PRES) and legebam (I read-PAST.IMP) ) are Infecta forms and are analogous to one another, the Latin past-perfective forms (like legi (I read-PAST.PERF)) are Perfecta forms and are to be opposed to the former (see Oldsjö 2001).

I will define the class of temporally homogeneous predicates as the class of those predicates having the sub-interval property, the class of temporally non-homogeneous predicates as the class of those predicates not having it (Bennett and Partee 1978). Given a temporal property P of type <i, t>,

(3) P is temporally homogeneous if i [P( i) i' [ i' i P( i')]]

(4) P is temporally non-homogeneous if i [P(i)i' [i’ i P(i')]],where i and i' are intervals

4.1. Tense architecture

In order to develop a tense architecture appropriate to the proposal I am making, I postulate that Italian tenses are to be decomposed into an homo-geneity condition (which distinguishes Infectum the Perfectum) and a tem-poral variable (which distinguishes past from present)3. I will assume that the homogeneity condition is the actual head of the tense projection whose specifier position is filled by the time variable as represented by the trees below:

40 Fabrizio Arosio

I. TEMPORA INFECTA II. TEMPORA PERFECTA

Imperfetto Passato Remoto

TP

PAST i T'

THOM <it,it>

VP<it>

TP

PAST i T'

TN–HOM <it,it>

VP<it>

Presente Reporters Present?

TP

PRESi T'

THOM <it,it>

VP<it>

TP

PRESi T'

TN–HOM <it,it>

VP<it>

4.2. Homogeneity conditions and temporal variables

Within this architecture, the head of the tense projection will be a predicate restriction, namely, a function from predicates of time to predicates of time, presupposing its complement to be temporally homogeneous or not.4

The lexical entries of the two Italian tenses will be

(5) HOM =: Pt(P(t)): P is temporally homogeneous.(6) N-HOM =: Pt(P(t)): P is temporally non-homogeneous5

As you can see from the tense architecture above, the predicate restric-tion associated with the Tempora Infecta is HOM, the one associated with the Tempora Perfecta is N-HOM. Therefore, in the case of the Tempora In-fecta, the predicate restriction HOM takes a predicate of times as its argu-ment and it gives it back, if this latter is temporally homogeneous; in the case of the Tempora Perfecta, N-HOM takes a predicate of times as its ar-gument and it gives it back, if it is temporally non-homogeneous. The tem-poral predicate restrictions are what brings the contribution of tense into the aspectual interpretation of a sentence, as we will see later. The obtained property of times is, in turn, saturated by the denotation of the temporal pronoun occupying the TP-Spec position.

As for the definition of the temporal pronoun, I will assume the straight-forward analysis of Heim (1994), who developed the intuition that tenses


are to be handled on a par with pronouns (Partee 1973; Enç 1986). Heim observes that, just as a free instance of she can only refer to a female indi-vidual, a free instance of the temporal pronoun PASTi refers to a time be-fore the time of the utterance, and therefore, since the contribution of gen-der has been treated as a presupposition (Cooper 1983; Heim 1982), we should do the same with the temporal features associated with the temporal variables. Temporal pronouns are thus defined as time variables carrying presuppositions:

(7) ||PASTi||g,c = g(i) when g(i) < tc , undefined otherwise

(8) ||PRESi||g,c = g(i) when g(i) < tc , undefined otherwise

Definition (7) says that the denotation of PASTi is defined if the value that the assignment function g assigns to the index i is a time before tc, the time of the context of utterance; if it is defined, it is equal to the value that the assignment function g assigns to the index i. Definition (8) says that the de-notation PRESi is defined if the value that the assignment function g assigns to the index i is a time not before tc; if it is defined, it is equal to the value that the assignment function g assigns to the index i.

We can now see how the system works. Consider the following sen-tence:

(9) Mario era malato.Mario was(Imperfetto) sick‘Mario was sick.’

The derivation of its LF will start with the state predicate Mario be sick. I will distinguish event predicates from state predicates and I will assume that the logical form of a state predicate has an explicit argument for times as follows (Herweg 1991, Katz 1995)

(10) t(Mario be sick(t))

The state predicate is merged with the tense head and the obtained temporal predicate is in turn filled by the temporal pronoun PASTi, as shown below

(11) PASTi (HOM( t(Mario be sick(t)) ))

42 Fabrizio Arosio

(12) TP

PAST i T'

THOM<it,it>

VP<it>λ t( Mariobe sick(t))

Given the definedness conditions carried by the temporal variable and by the predicate restriction HOM, we will have that (11) is defined if

(13) ||PASTi ||g,c is defined,

and if

(14) ||HOM(t(Mario be sick(t)))||g,c, is defined,

namely if g(i) < tc, and if t(Mario-be-sick(t)) is homogeneous, which is the case, since state predicates are temporally homogeneous (Bennett and Par-tee 1978; Dowty 1979). If this is the case, then

(15) ||PASTi (HOM( t(Mario be sick(t)) ))||g,c = 1 iff

the time denoted by PASTi is a past time at which Mario is sick.

5. Durative per- and da-adverbials

I will assume durative per- and da-adverbials to be temporal modifiers (Parsons, 1994), namely functions from time properties to time properties. Intuitively, while per-adverbials take a temporal predicate and they give it back by saying that it is true of an interval of a certain length (Dowty 1979), da-adverbials take a temporal predicate and, by introducing an ex-tended now interval (Dowty 1979; McCoard 1978), they give back a predi-cate of times abutting an interval of a certain length of which the original temporal predicate is true (von Stechow 2002; Musan 2000)6. The interest-ing property of these adverbs is that while per-adverbials quantize (Krifka, 1989) the temporal predicate they modify, da-adverbials make them homo-geneous.

That per-adverbials turn all temporal predicates into quantized temporal predicates (which are, a fortiori, non-homogeneous) is easy to see. I will


assume that per-adverbials introduce universal quantification over times (Dowty 1979).

(16) Per x time := Pt( t = x time long & t’(t’t P(t’))

The definition in (16) says that a per-adverbial takes a predicate of times P as its argument and it gives back a temporal predicate denoting a set of times i, which are x long, and for which every subinterval j of i belongs to the set of times denoted by the original predicate P. More intuitively, the adverb says that the predicate P is true of every subinterval of an interval that is x long. These adverbs quantize the temporal predicate they modify, namely they give a temporal predicate which, if true of an interval, is false of every proper subinterval of that interval7.

(17) P is temporally quantized iff i[P(i)j [ji P(j)]]where i and j are intervals

Now, consider the time predicate John be sick for two days. As shown by the picture below, if it is true of an interval i, it is false of every proper subinterval j of i trivially because j cannot be two days long if it is properly included in i

Da-adverbials turn all temporal predicates into homogeneous temporal predicates. This is very easy to see as well. As proposed by von Stechow (2002), these adverbials introduce an extended-now interval. I will assume a slightly modified version of von Stechow's definition of durative seit-ad-verbials, which works better for Italian

(18) da x tempo := PtI( t abuts I & P(It) & (I) = x time)

The definition in (18) says that a da-adverbial applies to a temporal predi-cate P and it gives back a temporal predicate denoting a set of times i such that there is an x-time long interval I abutting i ("t abuts I" means that the right bound of I is the left bound of t) and the set union of I and i belongs to the set of times denoted by the original predicate P. Intuitively, it gives back a property of times abutting an x-long interval of which the original predicate is true. Consider now the temporal predicate in (20) obtained by the application of the da-adverbial in (19) to the state predicate t(Mario be

John-be-sick-for-two-days

i = 2 days long

j2days

i

Mario's sickness time line

jI = 2 days long

i

Mario's sickness time lineI = 2 days long

44 Fabrizio Arosio

sick(t)):

(19) da due giorni (since two days):= PtI(t abuts I & P(It) & (I)=2d.)

(20) tI( t abuts I & Mario-be-sick (It) & (I)=2 days)

The temporal predicate in (20) denotes a set of times i abutting an interval of 2 days length I for which Mario is sick at i plus I, as shown by the pic-ture below

The "homogenizing" nature of da-adverbials is easy to understand. Con-sider the picture below

If (20) is true of the interval i, it should be true of every subinterval j of i. Since the duration measure two days is relative to the time I introduced by existential quantification and not to i, and I abuts j, I j will be always in-cluded in I i. Therefore, if Mario is sick at I i, he is sick at I j, and this shows that the obtained predicate is homogeneous.

While the quantizing character of for-adverbials explains why they do not combine with a Tempus Infectum but do with a Tempus Perfectum, the homogenizing nature of da-adverbials explains why they combine with a Tempus Infectum, but not with a Tempus Perfectum. Consider the follow-ing sentences where a per-adverbial combines with the Passato Remoto but not with the Imperfetto and the associated LFs:

(21) Mario fu malato per due giorni. Mario was(P. Remoto) sick for two days ‘Mario was sick for two days.’


TP

PAST i T'

TN–HOM <it,it>

VP

perdue giornifortwo days

λPλt (t = 2 days &∀ t’(t’⊆t →P(t’)))

VP<it>Marioessere malatoλ t( Mariobe sick(t))

(22) ?? Mario era malato per due giorni.

‘Mario was(Imperf.) sick for two days.’

TP

PAST i T'

THOM <it,it>

VP

perdue giornifortwo days

λPλ t (t = 2 days &∀ t’(t’⊆t →P(t’)))

VP<it>Marioessere malatoλt( Mariobe sick(t))

In both (21) and (22) we start the derivation of the LFs from the state predicate t(Mario be sick(t)) and we obtain the non-homogeneous tempo-ral predicate t( t = 2 days & t’(t’t Mario be sick (t‘)) by for-modifi-cation. In (21) this temporal predicate is merged with the tense head N-HOM and in turn applied to the temporal variable PASTi. The definedness conditions for the obtained sentence require the denotation of PASTi to be a past time and t( t = 2 days & t’(t’t Mario be sick (t‘)) to be non-ho-mogeneous, which is the case. Therefore if PASTi refers to a time before the time of the context of utterance, the sentence is felicitous when uttered in that context, and it is true if and only if PASTi denotes a time which is two days long and is characterized by Mario's sickness. On the contrary, in (22),

46 Fabrizio Arosio

the presupposition carried by HOM cannot be met, since t( t = 2 days & t’(t’t Mario be sick (t‘)) is temporally non-homogeneous. This pre-suppositional-illness of (22) is then the root of its ungrammaticality. As we observed before, a per- modified predicate is fine under the Imperfetto and the Presente when receiving an habitual interpretation. This follows from the proposal I am making. Since habits are temporally homogeneous, habit-ual predicates can meet the presupposition associated with a HOM head. I will propose habitual predicates to be obtained by application of an HA-BITUAL operator which stativizes the predicate it modifies. For further discussion see Scheiner's (2002) MA thesis.

On the other hand, the homogeneous character of a temporal predicate obtained by da-modification allows it to combine with the Imperfetto for the opposite reason but prevents it from combine with the Passato Remoto, as shown by the sentence (23) and its LF: (23) ?? Mario fu malato da due giorni.

Mario was-P.Remoto sick since two days

TP

PAST i T'

TN–HOM <it,it>

VP

da due giornisince two days

λPλt∃I (t abuts I & P(I∪t)& δ(I) = 2 days)

VP<it>Mario essere malatoλ t(Mario be sick(t))

As we see from its LF, sentence (23) suffers from presuppositional-illness, since the non-homogeneity presupposition carried by the N-HOM head cannot be met by the temporal property tI(t abuts I & Mario-be-sick (It) & (I) = 2 days), which is homogeneous. Clearly, such a temporal property combines with a Tempus Infectum, since it meets the homogene-ity presupposition carried by the HOM head.

State predicates combine however with the Passato Remoto without any overt for-adverbial modification, as shown by the sentence below:

(24) Mario fu malato (*ed è ancora malato).


‘Mario was-PassatoRemoto sick (*and he is still sick).’

Sentence (24) describes some sickness of Mario’s which is terminated in the past, as shown by the non-availability of the continuation in brackets. I assume that, in such cases, in order to fulfill the non-homogeneity presup-position associated with the Passato Remoto, the temporally homogeneous state predicate is maximalized (and thus temporally quantized) by the covert application of the following maximality operator

(25) MAX:= Pt(P(t) & t'(tt' & P(t'))

The application of MAX gives us the following correct LF for (24)

(26) PASTi(N-HOM(t(Mario-be-sick(t)&t'(tt' & Mario-be-sick (t')))).

According to (26), the application of the MAX operator correctly gives us that Mario's sickness is terminated in the past. On the one hand the ap-plication of the MAX operator gives the same quantizing effect as the ap-plication of for adverbials, but on the other hand, this latter is different from the former since it does not entail terminativity. In fact, nothing pre-vents Mario's sickness to hold up to the speech time given the LF associ-ated with (21). According to my intuitions, this seems to be a an unwel-come prediction since I understand Mario's sickness to be terminated in the past in (21). I found however a significant geographical variation on the judgements and, moreover, if we have a brief look at available corpus data we do find sentences like:

(27) La cupola del Brunelleschi fu per lungo tempo, ed è ancora, il sim-bolo visivo dell'intera città.‘The cupola from Brunelleschi was-Pass.Remoto for long time, and it is still, the symbol visual of-the whole city.’

which require the for-modified states not to be necessarily terminated be-fore the speech time. I argue that we find a terminativity effect due to prag-matic factors associated with for-adverbials: since for-adverbials are down-ward entailing (John ran in the park for five minutes entails John ran in the park for four minutes), in order to be maximally informative, the length in-dicated by the for-adverbial should be the length of the maximal interval for which the predicate is true. This explains why we intend that Mario's sickness is terminated in the past in (21).

48 Fabrizio Arosio

6. Italian Perfect I: a special tense

As we have seen in (1) and (2), the presence of the Perfect changes the dis-tribution of the adverbials under the same tense morphology (borne by the auxiliary verb). In recent work, von Stechow (2001) (see also Paslawska and Stechow (2003) in this volume) argued that the Passato Prossimo mor-phology in (d) is a variant of the Passato Remoto inflection and he sug-gested that the same temporal meaning can be spelled out by the Passato Remoto or by the Passato Prossimo in Italian. While, on the one hand, this proposal correctly predicts the adverbial distribution in (d), on the other, it reveals its weakness if we consider the contrast below:

(28) Maria sposerà un uomo che haMaria marry-3singFUT a man who have-3singPRES

vissuto a NY.lived in NY.

‘Maria will marry a man who has lived in NY.’

(29) Maria sposerà un uomo cheMaria marry-3singFUT a man who

visse a NY.live-3sing.PassatoRemoto in NY

‘Maria will marry a man who lived in NY.’8

Sentence (28) is temporally ambiguous. It can mean: (i) that Mary will marry a man in the future with respect to the speech time and that this man lives in NY in the past with respect to the speech time; or (ii) that Mary will marry a man in the future with respect to the speech time and that this man lives in NY in the past with respect to the future marrying event (thus his living in NY may be in the future with respect to the speech time), as repre-sented by (30a-b) below

(30) a.

marryingliving-in-NY speech time


b.

Sentence (29) is not temporally ambiguous. According to (29), the living-in-NY can only be in the past with respect to the speech time, namely: (29) can only have the temporal interpretation represented in (30a). If we con-sider the Passato Remoto and the Passato Prossimo to be free spell-out vari-ants of one and the same tense, we have to stipulate that the Passato Prossimo is semantically ambiguous in order to account for the meaning variations of (28), so, we have to assume that under the reading (30b) the Passato Prossimo is the spell-out of something else. We can easily get rid of this ambiguity if we assume that the perfect morphology in (28) is the spell-out of a Priorean (1957) temporal operator in the scope of the present tense as represented below

(31) TP

t i T'

T <it,it>

PERFECT VP<it>

(32) PERFECT:= Ptt'[t'<t & P (t')] : P is temporally non-homoge-neous.

The definition in (32) says that the perfect takes a time predicate as its ar-gument and gives a predicate of the times which are after a certain time at which the original temporal predicate holds, and it presupposes this latter to be temporally non-homogeneous. As observed by von Stechow (2002), the Perfect as defined in (32) can be seen as the object language representation of the truth conditions of the Priorean past operator, since it introduces an existential quantification over times preceding the time denoted by tense. By introducing existential quantification, the Perfect turns all the predicates it modifies into temporally homogeneous predicates. Let us illustrate this. Consider the following temporal property obtained by Perfect modification from the temporally quantized predicate Mario be sick for two days

(33) tt' [t' < t & Mario be sick for two days (t')]

marryingliving-in-NYspeech time

iMario be sick for two days

time linej

50 Fabrizio Arosio

As shown by the picture below, if (33) is true of a interval i, it is true of ev-ery subinterval j of i, trivially because an interval which is before another interval is before every subinterval of that interval

According to this proposal, the LF associated with (1d) will therefore be:

(34) TP

PRESi T'

THOM<it,it>

PERFECT

λPλ t∃t' [t' < t & P (t')]:P is temporallynon–homogeneous

VP<it>

perdue orefortwo hours

λPλ t (t = 2 hours &∀ t’(t’⊆t →P(t'))

VP<it>it to be dark

λt(it to be dark (t))

In this analysis, the difference between the Passato Remoto and the Piuc-cheperfetto (the Italian Pluperfect form you find in (1e) and in (2e)) will depend on whether we find a past or a present temporal pronoun in Spec-TP position. The ungrammaticality of (2d-e) follows from the non-homo-geneity presupposition we associated with the Perfect in (32). Since the Perfect presupposes its complement to be non-homogeneous, it cannot combine with a temporal predicate obtained via da-adverbial; this non-ho-mogeneity presupposition is moreover responsible for the fact that eventu-alities described under the Perfect get a terminative interpretation in Italian.

One weak point of this proposal is that our durative temporal adverbials should always occur in the scope of the perfect. This seems to me a quite strong stipulation and I think it is a sign that our description of the Italian perfect is not yet entirely correct. In our analysis, we have so far described


the perfect as a temporal operator in the scope of tense. I think that this is wrong and that the scope stipulations are a indication of this error: the per-fect is a tense. In order to develop this intuition, I propose the Passato Prossimo and the Piuccheperfetto to be two forms of a special tense, the perfect. In harmony with the architecture of tense proposed in this paper, I assume the perfect to be a special predicate restriction as defined in (32), namely a special tense head selecting for temporally non-homogeneous predicates, whose specifier position is filled by a past or a present time variable as represented below9

ITALIAN PERFECT I

Passato Prossimo Piuccheperfetto

TP

PRESi T'

TPERFECT

VP<it>

TP

PAST i T'

TPERFECT

VP<it>

This analysis gives us the correct scope order: temporal adverbials are always in the scope of the perfect with no further stipulations.

7. Aspect and event predicates

Until now, we have discussed state predicates which we assumed to denote properties of times. But, as well known (Davidson 1976), we need events in our ontology. Following Herweg (1991) and Katz (1995), I distinguish be-tween state and event predicates by assuming that, while a state predicate has an explicit argument for times, an event predicate has an explicit argu-ment for events as below

(35) || to love || := yxt(love(t),(x),(y))

(36) || to sleep || := xe(sleep(e),(x))

As will be clear from (35) and (36), a temporal predicate representing a state belongs to the logical type <i, t> and can be modified by a durative temporal adverbial or be saturated by the tense variable, while an event predicate belongs to the type <e, t > and needs to be type shifted to undergo temporal modification. I assume that, in the LF of an event sentence, im-plicit aspectual operators are responsible for this type shifting by localizing

52 Fabrizio Arosio

the described event with respect to time (Klein 1994; Kratzer 1998; Ste-chow 2001; Musan 2000). The common aspectual operators are the inclu-sion operator, and its complementary. The inclusion operator, also called Perfective operator, since it is responsible for the perfective reading of an event sentence, localizes the described event within a time: it takes a prop-erty of events and it gives a property of times including the temporal trace of the event. Its complementary, also called Imperfective operator, since it is responsible for the imperfective reading of an event sentence, localizes the described event as surrounding a time: this operator takes a property of events and it gives a property of times properly included in the temporal trace of the event. The Perfective and Imperfective aspectual operators are defined as follows (where is a function taking an event and giving its tem-poral trace.10):

(37) Perfective =: ||PFV|| = Pte(t (e) & P(e))

(38) Imperfective =: ||IPV|| = Pte((e) t & P(e))

Interestingly, a temporal property formed via the IPV operator will always be homogeneous, as shown by the picture below:

If j is included in the temporal trace of e, every subinterval k of j will be in-cluded as well: therefore we expect a temporal property formed via the IPV operator to combine with a Tempus Infectum. On the other hand, a tempo-ral property formed via the PFV operator will always be non-homogeneous, therefore we expect it to combine with a Tempus Perfectum

As shown above, if j includes the temporal trace of e, it is not the case that every subinterval k of j will be included in j. Consider now the following sentence describing an event under the Passato Remoto and its associated LF:

(39) Mario mangiò una mela.Mario eat-P.REMOTO an apple‘Mary ate an apple.’

||(e)|| = itime line

j k

||(e)|| = i time linej k


(40) TP

PAST i T'

TN–HOM <it,it>

AspP<et,it>

PFV:λPλt∃e(t ⊇ τ(e)

& P(e))VP<et>

Mario mangiare una melaλe( Marioeat an apple(e))

The temporal predicate obtained via the PFV operator meets the non homo-geneity condition carried by the N-HOM head. This explains why event sentences always have terminative interpretations under the Passato Re-moto, as shown by the bad continuation of the sentence in (41):

(41) Mario mangiò una mela, *e la sta ancora mangiando.‘Mario eat-P.REMOTO an apple, *and it he-is still eating.’

Analogously, a temporal predicate obtained via the PFV operator, but not one obtained via the IPV operator, meets the non-homogeneity presupposi-tion associated with the PERFECT tense head. This correctly predicts that events predicates described under the Perfect get a terminative interpreta-tion as shown by the bad continuation in (42):

(42) Mario ha mangiato una mela, *e la sta ancora mangiando.‘Mario has eaten an apple, *and it he-is still eating.’

Going back to state predicates, we find that they are ambiguous between a terminative and an inchoative interpretation under the Passato Remoto. Consider the following sentence:

(43) Fu buio.(it) was-P.Remoto dark

As we have already seen (see (24)), sentence (43) can mean that there is some past terminated darkness state, but it can also mean that it became dark in the past. Given the non-homogeneity condition associated with the

54 Fabrizio Arosio

Passato Remoto, these two readings are the result of shifting a homoge-neous predicate into a non-homogeneous one in order to satisfy it. As we have seen, the terminative reading is obtained via maximalization of the state predicate. The inchoative reading of (43) I propose to be obtained by the application of the covert "achievementizing" operator below

(44) BECOME =: Pe (becomee(P)). The event e is a becoming with re-sult P, where P is a state.

As shown by (45), the predicate obtained via the become operator is in turns perfectivized and selected by the Passato Remoto

(45) a. TP

PAST i T'

TN–HOM <it,it>

AspP<et,it>

PFV:λPλt∃e(t ⊇ τ(e)

& P(e))<it,et>

BECOME= :λPλe (becomee(P)) VP<it>

λ t(it– be– dark (t))

b. PASTi (N-HOM (te(t (e) & becomee(It-be-dark))))

Under this reading, the sentence is true if and only if g(i) is a past time in-cluding the time of a becoming dark event. Interestingly, the analysis pre-dicts that the result state can hold up to speech time since the embedded state of result is not temporally constrained, as shown by the sentence be-low (Bertinetto 2001):

(46) La sua squadra preferita aveva perso. Gianni ne ebbe un forte mal di pancia che ancora non gli è passato.‘His preferred team had lost. Because of this, Gianni got a belly ache, which is still paining him.’


8. Italian Perfect II: telic predicates and Perfect

It is however not true that da-adverbials do not combine with the Perfect at all. In fact they do when the predicate is a change of state predicate:

(47) Il Parco Disney Studios ha aperto i cancelli da sei ore.‘The Park Disney Studios has opened the gates since six hours.’

Sentence (47) says that the Disney Park opened its gates, and that the gates have been open for six hours (up to now); in (47), the adverbial modi-fies the state brought about by the completion of the opening event and it says that this state holds for a six-hours-long interval abutting the speech time.

I argue that, in order to give a correct analysis of sentences like (47), we have to assume that, in Italian, the perfect morphology is ambiguous be-tween the spell-out of a special Tempus Perfectum, as defined in section 6, and the spell-out of a result state construction. The perfect morphology in (47) is the spell-out of this latter: it introduces a state of result brought about by the completion of a telic event which can be modified by temporal adverbials or saturated by tense.

That the perfect is ambiguous between these two meanings is clear if we consider the contrast below:

(48) a. Alle tre, il Parco Disney Studios ha aperto i cancelli da 6 ore.‘At three o'clock, the Park Disney Studios has opened the gates since six hours.’

b. Alle tre, il Parco Disney Studios ha aperto i cancelli per sei ore.‘At three o'clock, the Park Disney Studios has opened the gates for six hours.’

In (48a-b) da- and per-adverbials11 modify the result state brought about by the completion of the opening event but, interestingly, in (48b) the adverb alle tre (at three o'clock) localizes the opening event, while in (48a) it local-izes the right bound of the result state (the being open of the gates). This is a clear indication of the fact that the perfect conveys two different mean-ings in (48a-b): in (48a) it localizes the at-three-o'clock opening event in the past with respect to speech time, while in (48b) it introduces the state of the gates being open.

One might object that this does not prove anything, since these facts could be explained by assuming that the perfect morphology in (47) is the spell-out of a temporal operator the post state of the opening event, namely

56 Fabrizio Arosio

the forever holding state of the opening event having culminated, which Parsons (1990) calls resultant state, and that this post state is what is modi-fied by the da-adverbial. This explanation cannot be correct if we consider the unavailability of the continuation of (47) represented below:

(49) ?? Il Parco Disney Studios ha aperto i cancelli da sei ore ma la

polizia li ha chiusi un'ora fa.‘The Park Disney Studios has opened the gates since six hours, but the police has closed them one hour ago.’

Sentence (49) shows that the da-adverbial does not modify the post state of the opening event but rather its result state, since the gates should be open at speech time.

Recently, it has been argued that there are two classes of telic predi-cates, those that have an accessible result state, e.g. to open the gates, and those that do not, e.g. to send a letter (von Stechow 2002, Kratzer 2000). According to this analysis, only the former should occur in perfect of result constructions. I argue that this cannot be correct if we consider an Italian sentence like:

(50) Mario ha spedito il suo articolo da una settimana.‘Mario has sent his paper since one week.’

which, according to von Stechow and Kratzer should not convey a result state meaning. But as we have seen that da-adverbials do modify result states, the predicate spedire un articolo (to send a paper) do have an acces-sible result state. On the other hand, if we say that both spedire un articolo (to send a paper) and aprire i cancelli (to open the gates) have an accessible result state, we have to say why for-adverbials can modify the former but not this latter, as shown by the contrast below:

(51) ?? Mario ha spedito il suo articolo per una settimana.‘Mario has sent his paper for one week.’

(52) Il Parco Disney Studios ha aperto i cancelli per sei ore.‘The Park Disney Studios has opened the gates for six hours.’

In order to explain this fact, I argue that per-adverbials (for-) presuppose the result state they modify to be reversible(53) State reversibility:

S is a reversible state iff t(S(t) t'(t<t' & S(t')))


This reversibility presupposition associated with per-adverbials prevents them from combining with non reversible result states like to be dead, or to be sent.

In order to give an analysis for (47), we have to formulate a definition of change of state predicates which gives us the correct result when occurring in result state constructions. In recent work, Kratzer (2000) and von Ste-chow (2002) have proposed two alternative but similar definitions of ac-complishment predicates sensitive to result state modification. While in Kratzer's analysis transformative predicates denote relations between events and individual states having a certain property, in von Stechow's they de-note relations between events and properties of states, in order to account for the different meanings of adverbs modifying causative verbs (see also von Stechow 2000). Both Kratzer and von Stechow assume then that spe-cial operators called "aktionsart choosers" convert this relation into an event predicate or into a state of result predicate. Given that in my system I assumed states not to be primitive entities but state predicates to denote property of times, if we follow Kratzer's proposal we come up with the counterintuitive result that transformative predicates denote a causative re-lation between events and times having a certain property as defined below

(54) to open := xet(CAUSEw(e, t) & open(x)(t))

The only way of making sense of this is to assume Lewis's idea that times are event slices of a world; we shall avoid going into such a discussion which would be otiose to the aim of this paper. On the other hand, if we follow von Stechow's proposal and we reformulate his definition of trans-formative verbs in temporal terms, we obtain the following definition which integrates more naturally into the proposal I am making, without touching any ontological question about the nature of time

(55) to open := xyeP(CAUSEw(e,P) & Become(e,P) & Agent(e,y) & P = open x), where P is a state

However, (55) does not give us the right results when we apply to it the “aktionsart choosers” described in (57) and (58) below and we try to calcu-late the truth condition of the “CAUSE” proposition. This because, accord-ing to (55), transformative verbs denote causal relations between events and sets of times. Chierchia (p.c)12 suggested to me that a possible way of representing transformative predicates in the system I am proposing in this paper is to assume them to denote complex relations between an event and a time which abuts its temporal trace and of which the introduced result state holds, as described below13

58 Fabrizio Arosio

(56) to open:= xyet(t><(e) & CAUSEw(e, open(x)(t)) & Agent(e,y))

According to Kratzer's and von Stechow’s proposals, the relation in (56) is converted into an event predicate or into a result state predicate by the application of the following "aktionsart choosers", which I redefined in temporal terms

AKTIONSART CHOOSERS - FIRST TRY (57) RESULT:= Rte(R(e,t)) (58) EVENT := Ret(R(e,t))

According to (58), the eventive aktionsart chooser closes the temporal vari-able t and gives us a property of events, which can in turn enter the deriva-tion of the LF of an eventive sentence. On the other hand, according to (57), the RESULT aktionsart chooser closes the event variable e and gives us a property of times which are in a complex relation with e. Unfortu-nately, the result state predicate obtained by applying (57) to (55), as repre-sented below

(59) te(t><(e) &CAUSEw(e, the-gates-be-open(t)) & Agent(e,The-P-D-Studios) )

cannot meet the predicate restrictions associated to the tempora Infecta since is not temporally homogeneous. Its non-homogenous nature depends on the “t><(e)” condition; as we can see from the picture below, it is not true that every subinterval k of an interval j abutting the temporal trace of e abuts the temporal trace of e

(60)

This would prevent a result state predicate to combine with a Tempus In-fectum. This abutting condition is a problem for von Stechow’s (2002) for-mulation as well since there we find a BECOME operator. Von Stechow assumes, in fact, that result state predicates can be modified by seit-adver-bials (the analogous of Italian da-) in German and he correctly points out that positional seit-adverbials in German presuppose their argument to be temporally homogeneous as shown by the contrast below:

(61) Dieter ist seit 1975 in Düsseldorf. (von Stechow 2002)

(e) time linej

k


‘Dieter is since 1975 in Düsseldorf.’

(62) * Dieter ist seit 1975 achtmal in Tübingen.‘Dieter is since 1975 eight-times in Tübingen.’

Since (59), and the analogous result state predicate in von Stechow's analy-sis, is not temporally homogeneous it cannot be modified by seit-adver-bials. Moreover we find one more problem in von Stechow's (2002) pro-posal given his assumption that the Present tense denotes the speech time conceived as a point in German. Since a result state property holds of an in-terval abutting the temporal trace of the becoming event, when it combines with the present tense, the obtained temporal proposition will be true if the speech time instant abuts the temporal trace e. A quite strong result, which requires a sentence like:

(63) Ich habe meine Brille verloren.‘I have lost my glasses.’

to be true if the loosing event abuts the time at which the sentence is ut-tered.

In order to solve these problems I assume the right definition of the re-sult operator to be

(64) RESULT := RteI(R(e, I) & t I) OFFICIAL

According to (64), the result operator is a stativizer and its application to (55) gives us the correct definition of result state predicate below

(65) teI (I ><(e) & CAUSEw(e, the-gates-be-open(I)) & Agent(e,The-P-D-Studios) & t I )

This temporal property is homogeneous and meets the homogeneity condition associated by a da-adverbials, as observed by von Stechow, and the presuppositions introduced by the predicate restrictions associated with the temporal Infecta. The correct LF for (47) will be therefore

60 Fabrizio Arosio

(66) a. TP

PRESi T'

THOM <it,it>

VP<it>

1 VP<et,it<i,t>>

2 VP<<<et>,<it>>,t>3

1 = da due giorni, since two days. PtI( t abuts I & P(It) & (I)=2 days)2 = RteI(R(e, J) & t J)3 = et(t><(e) & CAUSEw(e, open-the gates(t)) & Agent(e,D.S.))

b. tI( t abuts I & eJ (J><(e) & CAUSEw(e, the-gates-be-open(J)) & Agent(e,The-P-D-Studios) & (I PRESi)J & (I)=2 days)

Given the LF in (66), there is one more thing that we should explain. According to how (47) is intended, the 2-day long interval introduced by the da-adverbial is understood as left abutting the temporal trace of the opening event and right abutting the speech time. This does not follow from the application of the da-adverbial to (65). I argue that this left abut-ting effect is due to pragmatic factors. Since da-adverbials sentences are downward entailing (Mario e` malato da due ore (Mario is sick since two hours) entails Mario e` malato da un'ora (Mario is sick since one hour)), in order to be maximally informative, the length indicated by the da-adverbial should be the length of the maximal interval for which we have evidence that the predicate is true. This explains the left abutting effect of da-adver-bial modification of result state predicates.

9. Generalizing across Romance languages

Da- and per-adverbials follow the same pattern of distribution in Romance languages.

FRENCH


Consider the following facts in French, where pendant- and depuis-adver-bials are the analogues of the Italian da- and per-adverbials:

Pendant-adverbials

(67a) ??La fenêtre est sale pendant deux joursThe window is-PRÉS dirty for two days [Présent]

(b) ??La fenêtre était sale pendant deux joursThe window was-IMP dirty for two days [Imparfait]

(c) La fenêtre fut sale pendant deux joursThe window was-PS dirty for two days [Passé Simple]

Depuis-adverbials

(68a) La fenêtre est sale depuis deux joursThe window is-PRÉS dirty since two days [Présent]

(b) La fenêtre était sale depuis deux joursThe window was-IMP dirty since two days [Imparfait]

(c) ??La fenêtre fut sale depuis deux joursThe window was-PS dirty since two days [Passé Simple]

As we can see from (67) and (68), pendant-adverbials combine with the Passé Simple but not with Présent and Imparfait while depuis-adverbs combine with the Présent and the Imparfait but do not with the Passé Sim-ple. Exactly as in Italian.

ROMANIANIn Romanian, where the analogues of per-adverbials is the bare durative ad-verbials14 and the analogous of da-adverbials the de-adverbials, we find the same distribution as well:

62 Fabrizio Arosio

Bare durative-adverbials(69a) ?? Ion e bolnav mult timp

Ion is-PRES sick long time [Prezentul](b) ?? Ion era bolnav mult timp

Ion was-IMP sick long time [Imperfectul]

(c) Ion fusse bolnav mult timpIon was-P.SIMP sick long time [Perfectul Simplu]

De-adverbials(70a) Ion e bolnav de 2 zile

Ion is-PRES sick since 2 days [Prezentul](b) Ion era bolnav de 2 zile

Ion was-IMP sick since 2 days [Imperfectul]

(c) ?? Ion fusse bolnav de 2 zileIon was-P.SIMP sick since 2 days [Perfectul Simplu]

Moreover, Romanian, French and Italian pattern in the “Perfect” distri-bution as shown below:

Bare /Pendant /Peradverbials

De/Depuis /Daadverbials

ROMANIAN(71)a. Ion a fost bolnav mult timp

Ion has been-PC sick long timeb. ??Ion a fost balnav de 2 zile

Ion has been-PC sick since 2 days

FRENCH(72)a. Ion a été malade pendant longtemps

Ion has been-PP sick for long-timeb.??Ion a été malade depuis longtemps

Ion has been-PP sick since long-time

ITALIAN(73)a. Ion è stato malato per molto tempo

Ion is been-PP sick for long timeb. ??Ion è stato malato da due giorni

Ion is been sick since 2 days

Given the facts above, it is plausible to claim that we should extend our analysis of Italian tenses to most Romance languages.

10. Conclusions

In this paper I have shown how temporal homogeneity accounts for the dis-


tribution of durative adverbials across different tense forms and for how the progressive and habitual readings appear under the same tense forms; I pro-pose a tense decomposition in which tense itself has some influence in the aspectual interpretation of a sentence. Moreover I have shown that the Ital-ian Perfect morphology is ambiguous in at least two ways by being the spell-out first of a state of result construction and next of a special tense. I additionally propose the generalizability of this analysis across Romance languages; further cross-linguistic comparison with different and unrelated languages will no doubt provide further evidence for the homogeneity ac-count I proposed.

Notes

* I wish to thank Arnim von Stechow and Graham Katz who helped me in find-ing a coherent story behind my foggy intuitions and Sam Featherston for Eng-lish corrections. This work also benefited from conversations with Andrea Bonomi, Gennaro Chierchia, Uli Sauerland and Winnie Lechner. Of course, only I am responsible for errors and failings. This research is part of the SFB441 activity.

1. For a discussion of the behavior of such adverbs in other languages see the arti-cles of Fassi, Rathert, Giannakidou, Musan and Iatridou et al. in this volume.

2. (1a-b) are perfectly fine under a habitual interpretation in an appropriate con-text. As we will see later, this is predicted by the proposal I am making in this paper.

3. We shall not discuss the case of future tenses in this paper since they do not add any additional relevant data to our discussion. They could be characterised as tenses having temporal variables only defined for future times.

4. A presupposition associated with a sentence narrows down the set of possible contexts in which the sentence can be felicitously uttered (see Stalnaker 1978; Lewis 1979; Heim 1982).

5. The denotation of the application of the predicate restriction to its complement is therefore- ||HOM (P) ||g,c = P when P is temporally homogeneous, undefined otherwise. - ||N-HOM (P) ||g,c = P when P is temporally not homogeneous, undefined oth-erwise.

6. As for the German SEIT-POSITION-ADVERBIAL described by Musan (2002), the Italian da- doesn't seem to have an English counterpart. Per-adver-bial is the Italian counterpart of the English for-.

7. Notice that being quantized is different from being non-homogeneous. See negation scope in (4) and (17).

8. Actually, this is not a good translation for the Italian (29) since it is an ambigu-ous English sentence which can have both the (30a) and (30b) readings.

64 Fabrizio Arosio

9. As in § 4.1, I will ignore the case of the future. A future time variable can clearly fill the SpecTP position of the perfect tense head and this combination is what is spelled out by the Futuro Anteriore morphology in Italian.

10. Clearly in the definition (38) we do not consider the modal aspect of the Im-perfective aspect discussed in Bonomi (1999) since it goes beyond the pur-pose of the present work.

11. Vide Piñón (1999) and von Stechow (2000) for a discussion about result state modification of for-adverbials.

12. Of course, I am the only responsible for mistakes and errors.13. The definition in (56) does not follow von Stechow’s idea that transformative

verbs denote a relation between an event and a property of a state, i.e. some-thing propositional, but it is more Kratzer’s, since it assumes these verbs to denote relations between events and individual times. Von Stechow (2000) argues that we need the property and not the individual state in order to ac-count for the restitutive readings of result state sentences modified by expres-sions like again/wieder/di nuovo. Chierchia (pc), again, suggested to me that given (56) and the aktionsart choosers below we could easily account for the repetitive reading of di nuovo/again modification by assuming these modi-fiers to denote a partial function from sets of object into sets of object as be -low

(i) di nuovo/again (P) = P when | P | ≥ 2, not defined otherwiseIn this case, the restitutive reading is no more obtained by modification of the state property, but always as a modification of a individual property (time property) which enters in a CAUSE relation with a certain implicitly given event. Again, I am the only responsible for mistakes and errors I made out of Chierchia’s intuitions.

14. The prepositional pentru-adverbials (for-adverbials) are result state modifiers in Romanian.

References

Bennett, Michael, and Barbara Partee1978 Toward the Logic of Tense and Aspect in English. Bloomington, In-

diana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Berrettoni, P.

1972 La Metafora aspettuale. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 12: 250-59.Bertinetto, Pier Marco

1986 Tempo, Aspetto e Azione nel verbo italiano: il sistema dell' indica-tivo. Firenze: Accademia Della Crusca.

2001 On a Frequent Misunderstanding in the Temporal-Aspectual Do-main: The 'Perfective-Telic' Confusion. In Semantic Interfaces [Ref-erence, Anaphora, Aspect], Bruno Cecchetto, Gennaro Chierchia


and Maria Teresa Guasti (eds.), 177-210. Stanford: CSLI.Bonomi, Andrea

1997 Aspect, quantification and when-clauses in Italian. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 469-514.

1999 Semantical remarks on the progressive readings of the imperfective. Milano, Manuscript.

Cooper, Robin 1983 Quantification and Syntactic Theory. Dordrecht: Reidel.

66 Fabrizio Arosio

Davidson, Donald 1976 The logical form of action sentences. In The Logic of Decision and

Action, Rescher, N. (ed.). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Devoto, G.

1940 L'«aspetto» del verbo. Lingua Nostra, 2: 35-38.Dowty, David

1979 Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Enç, Mürvet

1986 Toward a Referential Analysis of Temporal Expressions. Linguistics and Philosophy 9.1: 405-426.

Giorgi, Alessandra, and Pianesi, Fabio 1997 Tense and Aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. New York: Ox-

ford University Press.2001 Ways of Terminating. In Semantic Interfaces [Reference, Anaphora

and Aspect], Carlo Cecchetto, Gennaro Chierchia and Maria Teresa Guasti (eds.), 211-277. Stanford, California: CSLI.

Herweg, Michael 1991 Perfective and imperfective aspect and the theory of events and

states. Linguistics 29: 969-1010.Heim, Irene

1982 The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. disser-tation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

1994 Comments on Abusch's theory of tense, MIT manuscript.Katz, Graham

1995 Stativity, genericity, and temporal reference. Ph.D. dissertation, Uni-versity of Rochester.

Klein, Wolfgang1994 Time in Language. New York: Routledge.

Kratzer, Angelika 1998 More Structural Analogies Between Pronouns and Tenses. Paper

presented at SALT 8, Cambridge, Mass.2000 Building Statives: Berkeley Linguistic Society.

Krifka, Manfred 1989 Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. München: Wilhelm Fink.

Lewis, David 1973 Counterfactuals. Harvard University Press.1979 Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Lan-

guage 8: 339-359. Lucchesi, V.

1971 Fra grammatica e vocabolario: Studio sull'«aspetto» del verbo ital-iano, Studi di Grammatica Italiana 1, Firenze: Sansoni.


McCoard, Robert W. 1978 The English Perfect: Tense-Choice and Pragmatic Inferences. Ams-

terdam: North-Holland. Musan, Renate

2000 The Semantics of Perfect Constructions and Temporal Adverbials in German. Humboldt Universität: Habilitationsschrift.

2002 The German Perfect: Its Semantic Composition and Its Interactions With Temporal Adverbials. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Oldsjö, F. 2001 Tense and Aspect in Caesar's Narrative. Ph.D. dissertation, Uppsala

Universitet.Parsons, Terence

1994 Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Partee, Barbara 1973 Some Structural Analogies between Tenses and Pronouns in English.

Journal of Philosophy 70: 601-609.Paslawska, Alla, and Arnim von Stechow(this volume) Perfect Readings in RussianPiñón, Christopher

1999 Durative adverbials for result states. Universität Düsseldorf: Manu-cript. Available under: www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~pi-non/dars.html.

Prior A. 1957 Time and Modality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Scheiner, Magdalena 2002 Temporale Verankerung habitueller Sätze. Magisterarbeit, Univer-

sität Wien.Stalnaker, Robert C.

1978 Assertion. In Syntax and Semantics Vol. 9: Pragmatics, P. Cole (ed.). Academic Press, New York.

Stechow, Arnim von 2000 How are Results Represented and Modified? Remarks on Jäger &

Blutner's Anti-Decomposition. In Adverbs: Proceedings of the Oslo Conference on Adverbs, Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine, Ewald Lang, and Claudia Maienborn (eds.).

2001 The Janus Face of Aspect. Talk given at the Universita` degli Studi di Milano, October 5th 2001.

2002 German seit ‘since’ and the ambiguity of the German Perfect. In More than Words: A Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich, Barbara Stiebels and Ingrid Kaufmann (eds.), 393-432. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

http://www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~pinon/dars.html

http://www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~pinon/dars.html

68 Fabrizio Arosio

Varro, Marcus Terentius1996 De Lingua Latina. In De Lingua Latina X. A New Critical Text and

English Translation With Prolegomena And Commentary, Daniel Taylor (ed.). Amsterdam: Benjamins.


Ddurative adverbs

da ('since') 42da 'since' 37in Romance languages 60per ('for') 42

HHerweg, Michael 41

IImperfetto 39

Mmaximality operator 47

PPassato Prossimo 39Passato Remoto 38Perfect

in Italian 48Piuccheperfetto 50Presente 39

Qquantized predicates 43

SStechow, Arnim von 43

Ttempora infectum 39tempora perfectum 39terminativity 47

VVarro 39

70 Fabrizio Arosio


Documents

Durative Adverbials and Tense Properties in Italianastechow/AlexiadouRathertS… · Web view1979 Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Enç, Mürvet . 1986 Toward