[itemize]leftmargin=*
Event Kinds and the Pseudo-Relative
Nino Grillo (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) and Keir Moulton (Simon Fraser University)
nino.grillo@hu-berlin.de, kmoulton@sfu.ca
T HE P LOT
2. A TWIST WITH T ENSE M ISMATCHES
4. K IND PR S
In previous work on Pseudo-Relative (PR) constructions, we show that they are headed by a
null determiner. Because of this, PRs denote individual situations and so can complement direct
perception verbs.
In general, the tense of the PR must Match the matrix. Present tense only available under present.
Past (imperfective) under past (simple past SP).
(7)
a. Gianni vide Maria che ballava.
past...past
G.
saw.SP M.
that dance.IMPF.
‘G. saw M. dancing.’
b. *Gianni vide Maria che balla.
*past...pres
G.
saw.SP M.
that dance.PRES.
‘G. saw M. dancing.’
Many kind-taking predicates also take present PRs:
DP
D
(1)
CP
Ho
visto Maria che piangeva.
I.have seen Maria that cry-IMPF.
‘I saw Maria crying’
Maria che piangeva
Building on what we know about determiners in the nominal domain, we propose that PRs
show us that at least the following types of determiners are found in the clausal domain: (see
Portner 1995, Ferreira 2005, Iatridou 2014, a.o.)
Existential Quantifier D
Infinitives under perception
Specific (in)Definite D
Standard PRs
Higginbotham (1983)
Moulton and Grillo (2014)
However, when the matrix clause is Present Perfect, Mismatch is possible, allowing present PRs.
In that case, only generic spatial/temporal modifiers are allowed (giving rise to subkinds).
(8)
Kind-denoting D
Habitual PRs
this talk!
b.
PRs are finite constructions found in Italian (2), and many other languages, that are only superficially like relative clauses (Radford 1977, Kayne 1975, Cinque 1995, a.o.).
PRs can be constituents that refer to events/situations.
(2) Ciò che1
/(*Chi2 ) ho
visto è Maria2 che piangeva1
That which/ (Who) I.have seen is Maria that cry-IMPF
‘What /(*Who) I saw was Maria crying’ (after Radford 1977: 160(98))
PRs are DPs They can complement prepositions (3a), unlike standard finite CPs/infinitives (3b).
La storia di [PR Gianni che balla] è fantastica.
The story of
G.
that dances is fantastic.
‘The story of G. dancing is fantastic.’ (Cinque 1992: (35b))
b. *La storia di che Gianni ballava /Gianni ballare
non è vera.
The story of that G.
danced /G.
dance.INF not is true.
‘The story that G. danced is not true.’
Scopelessness of PRs also replicated with respect to higher quantifiers (see table)
D
THE
CP: hs,ti
ls.Lea dances the tango in s
Infinitive
QP: lP.9s[Lea dances the tango in s & P(s)]
9
hhs,ti,hhs,tihs,tiii
InfP: hs,ti
ls.Lea dances the tango in s
Moulton and Grillo (2015, forthcoming) argue the D can also be a specific indefinite.
• Habituals (e.g. the CP in (8a)) denote pluralities of events
• Episodics (e.g. the CP in (8b)) denote singular events
#2. Kind determiners: J Dkind K = lP.\ P
(14)
For any property P, \ P = lw iPw , if:
lw iPw is in the domain of Kinds K;
P is plural; undefined otherwise.
(15)
[DP Dkind [CP Maria che balla-habitual ]] = the kind associated with an event of Maria
dancing
(after Chierchia 1998, 16)
When token-taking verbs meet kind-denoting objects (16), the verb shifts by DKP:
Ciò che ho
visto è [DP questo tipo di evento] e [DP Maria che balla].
What that I.have seen is [ this
kind of event] and [ M.
that dances].
‘What I have seen is this type of event and Mary dancing.’
(16) [pointing at a picture of a lion in a zoology book] I saw that in the zoo
(Chierchia 1998, ex. 18).
And most importantly, these PRs take scope under negation unlike the match cases.
(10)
Max non ha mai visto Maria che balla
il tango.
M. NEG has never seen L.
that dance.PRES the tango.
‘M. never saw L. dance the tango / dancing the tango.’
(17) Derived Kind Predication (DKP):
JverbK(kind) = 9x[[ kind(x) & JverbK(x)]
[ kind = the property describing instantiations of the kind
¬>9/*9>¬
Lots of diagnostics contrasting Match PRs, Mismatch PRs and infinitives:
Negation
QP
Numerals
Conditional
Adjunct Island
Ellipsis reading
Spatial/Temporal
modification
Ability to introduce
discourse referents
Pseudo Incorporation
Kind Anaphora
(5) Gianni ha visto dalle
lacrime che Maria piangeva, #ma pensava ridesse.
G.
has seen from.the tears that M.
cry.IMPF, but thought laugh.SUBJ.
‘G. saw from the tears that M. was crying, #but thought she was laughing.
(6) N EGATION (E XISTENTIAL ENTAILMENT FOR PR S )
Dato che Lea non ha mai ballato. . .
Max non ha mai visto Lea ballare il tango /# L. che ballava il tango
M. NEG has never seen L. dance.INF the tango / L. that dance- IMPF the tango
‘M. never saw L. dance the tango / dancing the tango.’
#1. Ferreira (2005), Kratzer (2007)
5.E XPLAINING THE SCOPE DIFFERENCE WITH DKP
(4) Gianni ha visto Maria piangere /che piangeva, ma pensava ridesse.
G.
has seen M.
cry.INF /that cry.IMPF, but thought laugh.SUBJ.
‘G. saw M. cry /crying but thought she was laughing.’
PRs are referential, in comparison to infinitives which are existentially quantified (Higginbotham 1983)
2 ingredients:
(9)
PRs, like infinitives and unlike finite clauses, are transparent, epistemically neutral.
Barwise (1981): direct perception selects for individual situations (type s) not propositions, hs,ti
[Maria che balla] è piuttosto comune.
M.
that dances is rather
common.
‘Mary dancing is rather common.’
But this is no ordinary embedded habitual: These PRs are also DPs:
(3) a.
hhs,tisi
Ho
visto Maria che balla
(*al
parco giovedì scorso). Mismatch
I.have seen M.
that dance.PRES (at.the park Thursday last).
‘I saw M. dancing at the park last Thursday’.
Ho
visto Maria che ballava
(al
parco giovedì scorso). Match
I.have seen M.
that dance.IMPF at.the park Thursday last.
‘I saw M. dancing at the park last Thursday’.
(8a) and (8b) both report a past direct perception of one event of Mary dancing but (8a) additionally implies a habitual interpretation of the the embedded clause.
1. M OULTON & G RILLO 2015
Pseudo-Relative
DP: is: Lea dances the tango in s
a.
(13)
Infinitives
Wide/Narrow
Wide/Narrow
Collective/Distributive
No existential entailment
Multiple events
Strict/Sloppy
Match PRs
Scopeless (Wide)
Scopeless (Wide)
Collective Only
Existential Entailment
*Multiple Events
Strict/*Sloppy
Mismatch PRs
Narrow
Narrow
Distributive Only
No ex. entailment
*Single Event
Sloppy/*Strict
3(generic/punctual)
3 (punctual)
Generic only
3
3
7
3
7
7
7
3
3
J (10) K= ¬9s[s is an instantiation of an event-kind of dancing the tango by Maria & Max saw s]
Other differences (see table) between Match PRs and Mismatch PRs follow. E.g. temporal modifiers are out (8a) because they attach to a habitual sentence — the token is only derived by DKP.
Ambiguity: Even Match PRs can involve a kind PR, but that meaning appears to be less available
than the episodic PR.
Habituals can be used in direct perception complements, via Dkind
Experiential P ERFECT (E XP P ERF ) promotes kind readings for DP objects; S IMPLE PAST (SP) only
allows a token interpretation (see Carlson 1977:446 (122)).
(11)
Gianni ha assaggiato
di tutto, la foca, la balena e perfino il tricheco.
G.
has tasted.E XP P ERF of all, the seal, the whale and even the walrus.
G. is a guy who tried everything, seals, whales and even walruses.
KIND
(12)
Gianni assaggiò di tutto, la foca, la balena e perfino il tricheco.
G.
tasted.SP of all, the seal, the whale and even the walrus.
G. tried everything, the seal, the whale and even the walrus.
PR interpretation
Episodic PR
Habitual/kind PR (PRES)
or Episodic PR (IMPF)
Low scope in (10) is just a reflection of the existential incorporated by DKP:
6.C ONCLUSION : S O WHAT ’ S SURPRISING ?
3. W HY DOES M ATRIX T ENSE -A SPECT MATTER ?
Matrix Tense/Aspect
SP
E XP. P ERFECT
J (8a) K= 9s[[ [DP \ [CP Maria che balla ]](s) & see(s)(I) ]
= 9s[s is an instantiation of an event-kind of dancing by Maria & I saw s ]
TOKEN
Def. NP interpretation
Token
Kind or Token
This research was funded by the DFG – Leibniz Prize AL 554/8-1 to
Artemis Alexiadou and the Insight SSHRC Research Grant 435-20150454 to Junko Shimoyama (PI) and Keir Moulton.
• Ds select clauses and return the expected descriptions of situations (expected on Kratzer
1989, 2007 etc.)
• The range of Ds is constrained by Aspect (episodic/habitual) in a manner expected by
Ferreira 2005.
• Role of D and verbal inflection can be separated (cf. Ferreira 2005) as both exist in PRs.
• What other Ds combine with CPs? Why not plural definites?
R EFERENCES
Barwise. 1981. Scenes and other situations. The Journal of Philosophy, 78 369–397.
Carlson. 1977. A unified analysis of the English Bare Plural. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1:413–457.
Chierchia. 1998. Reference to kinds across language. Natural Language Semantics, 6(4), 339-405.
Cinque. 1992. The Pseudo-Relative and Acc-ing constructions after verbs of perception. U. of Venice WPiL.
Ferreira. 2005. Event Quantification and Plurality. Ph.D. MIT.
Guasti. 1988. La pseudorelative et les phénomenènes d’accord. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, 13:35–57.
Higginbotham. 1983. The logic of perceptual reports. The Journal of Philosophy 80:100–127.
Kayne. 1975. French Syntax. MIT Press.
Iatridou. 2014. About determiners on event descriptions, about time being like space (when we talk), and about one
particularly strange construction. Natural Language Semantics 22:219–263.
Kratzer. 2007. On the plurality of verbs. In Dölling, Heyde-Zybatow, & Schäfer (Eds.). De Gruyter.
Moulton. and Grillo. 2015. Pseudo-Relatives: Big and Direct. Proceedings of NELS 45. GLSA.
Portner. 1995. Quantification, events, and gerunds. In Bach, Jelinek, Kratzer & Partee (Eds.) Quantification In Natural
Languages. Springer, The Netherlands. 619-659.
Radford. 1977. Italian Syntax. Transformational and Relational Grammar. Cambridge University Press.
Event Kinds and the Pseudo Relative
Nino Grillo
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
&
Keir Moulton
Simon Fraser University
46th meeting of the North East Linguistics Society
Concordia, Montréal 16 October 2015
infinitive
Match PR
Mismatch PR
Negation (Given that M. neg has never danced)
Gianni non ha visto Maria ballare.
G.
neg has seen M. dance.
‘G. has never seen M. dance the tango.’
Neg > 9
#G. non ha visto M. che ballava
G. neg has seen M. that dance-impf
‘ G. never saw M. dancing.’
*Neg > 9
Max non ha visto M. che balla.
M. neg has seen M. that dance.pres.
‘M. never saw M. dancing.’
Neg > 9
Quantifiers
Tutti hanno visto Maria ballare.
All have seen M.
dance.inf
‘Every one saw M. dance.’
8 people > 9 (different) event of M. dancing
9 (same) event of M. dancing > 8 people
Tutti hanno visto Maria che ballava.
All have seen Mary that danceimpf.
‘Every one saw M. dancing.’
9 (same) event of M. dancing > 8 people
*8 people > 9 (different) event of Mary dancing
Tutti hanno visto Maria che balla.
All have seen Mary that danceimpf.
‘Every one saw M. dancing.’
??9 (same) event of M. dancing > 8 people
8 people > 9 (different) event of M. dancing
Numerals
Tutti abbiamo visto 3 orsi scappare.
All we.have seen 3 bears run.away.inf.
‘We all saw 3 bears run away’.
distributive /cumulative
Tutti abbiamo visto 3 orsi che scappavano.
All we.have seen 3 bears that run.away.impf.
‘We all saw 3 bears running away’.
cumulative /*distributive
Tutti abbiamo visto 3 orsi che scappano.
All we.have seen 3 bears that run.away.pres.
‘We all saw 3 bears running away’.
distributive/*cumulative
Conditionals (If G. had seen . . . )
. . . Gianni ballare si sarebbe arrabbiata.
G.
dance si be
get.angry.
‘she would have got angry.’
But G. never danced
. . . Gianni che ballava
si sarebbe arrabbiata.
G.
that dance.impf si be
get.angry.
‘G. dancing she would have got angry.’
*But G. never danced
. . . Gianni che balla
si sarebbe arrabbiata.
G.
that dance.pres si be
get.angry.
‘G. dancing she would have got angry.’
But G. never danced
infinitive
Match PR
Mismatch PR
Adjunct Islands
Ogni prof. ha gioito quando ha visto Max
Every prof. has rejoiced when has seen M.
barare all’esame.
cheat.inf at.the’exam.
‘Every professor rejoiced when he saw M. cheat at the
exam.’
multiple events preferred
Ogni prof. ha gioito quando ha visto Max che
Every prof. has rejoiced when has seen M. that
barava
all’esame.
cheat.impf at.the’exam.
‘Every professor rejoiced when he saw M. cheating at
the exam.’
single event preferred (obligatory with matrix Past)
Ogni prof. ha gioito quando ha visto Max che
Every prof. has rejoiced when has seen M. that
bara
all’esame.
cheat.pres at.the’exam.
‘Every professor rejoiced when he saw M. cheating at
the exam.’
multiple events obligatory.
Reading under Ellipsis
Tutti abbiamo visto Maria ballare
in spiaggia,
All we.have seen M.
dance.inf, also the
anche il direttore.
director.
‘We all saw M. dance, even the director.’
Sloppy /Strict
Tutti abbiamo visto Maria che ballava,
anche
All we.have seen M.
that dance.impf, also
il direttore.
the director.
‘We all saw M. dancing, even the director.’
Strict /#Sloppy
Tutti abbiamo visto Maria che balla, anche il
All we.have seen M.
that dances, also the
direttore.
director.
‘We all saw M. dancing, even the director.’
Sloppy /*Strict
Temporal Modifiers
Ho
visto Maria ballare
(il) giovedı̀.
I.have seen M.
dance.inf (the) Thursday.
‘I all saw M. dance on Thursday(s)’.
generic/punctual
Ho
visto Maria che ballava
(*il) giovedı̀.
I.have seen M.
that dance.impf (the) Thursday.
‘I all saw M. dancing on Thursday(s)’.
punctual/#generic
Ho
visto Maria che balla
*(il) giovedı̀.
I.have seen M.
that dance.pres (the) Thursday.
‘I saw M. dancing at last Thursday(s)’.
generic/#punctual
Spatial Modifiers
Ho
visto Maria ballare
al
parco.
I.have seen M.
dance.inf at.the park.
‘I all saw M. dance at the park’.
punctual/event subkind
Ho
visto Maria che ballava
al
parco.
I.have seen M.
that dance.impf at.the park.
‘I all saw M. dancing at the park’.
punctual/# event subkind
*Ho visto Maria che balla
al
parco.
I.have seen M.
that dance.pres at.the park.
‘I saw M. dancing at the park’.
event subkind/#punctual
(in)Ability to introduce Discourse Referents
Tutti abbiamo visto 3 orsi1 scappare
.
All we.have seen 3 bears run.away.inf.
‘We all saw 3 bears running away’.
pro1 erano grizzly
they were grizzly
Tutti abbiamo visto 3 orsi1 che scappavano.
All we.have seen 3 bears that run.away.impf.
‘We all saw 3 bears running away’.
pro1 erano grizzly
they were grizzly
Tutti abbiamo visto 3 orsi1 che scappano.
All we.have seen 3 bears that run.away.pres.
‘We all saw 3 bears run away’.
*pro1 erano grizzly
they were grizzly
Tutti abbiamo visto M. ballare1
.
All we.have seen M. dance.inf.
‘We all saw Maria dance.’
pro1 è stato uno spettacolo
it was quite a sight
Tutti abbiamo visto M. che ballava1 .
All we.have seen M. that dance.impf.
‘We all saw M. dancing.’
pro1 è stato uno spettacolo
it was quite a sight
Tutti abbiamo visto M. che balla1 .
All we.have seen M. that dance.pres.
‘We all saw M. dancing.’
*pro1 è stato uno spettacolo
it was quite a sight
infinitive
Pseudo Incorporation
Ho
visto Gianni mangiare due caramelle che
I.have seen G.
eat.inf two candies that
avevo messo sul
tavolo.
I.had put
on.the table.
‘I saw G. eat two candies that I had put on the table’.
Kind Anaphora
Ho
visto Gianni mangiare due caramelle che
I.have seen G.
eat.inf two candies that
avevo messo sul
tavolo.
I.had put
on.the table.
‘I saw G. eat two candies that I had put on the table’.
Match PR
Mismatch PR
Ho
visto Gianni che mangiava due caramelle
*Ho visto Gianni che mangia due caramelle che
I.have seen G.
that eat.impf two candies
I.have seen G.
that eat.pres two candies that
che avevo messo sul
tavolo.
avevo messo sul
tavolo.
that I.had put
on.the table.
I.had put
on.the table.
‘I saw G. eating two candies that I had put on the ‘I saw G. eating two candies that I had put on the
table’.
table’.
Ho
visto Gianni che mangiava due caramelle
*Ho visto Gianni che mangia due caramelle che
I.have seen G.
that eat.impf two candies
I.have seen G.
that eat.pres two candies that
che avevo messo sul
tavolo.
avevo messo sul
tavolo.
that I.had put
on.the table.
I.had put
on.the table.
‘I saw G. eating two candies that I had put on the ‘I saw G. eating two candies that I had put on the
table’.
table’.
Compatibility with kind-taking predicates
*Non sopporto Gianni fumare.
neg stand
G.
smoke.
‘I can’t stand G. smoke.’
*Non sopporto Gianni che fumava.
neg stand
G.
that smoked.
‘I can’t stand G. smoking.’
Non sopporto Gianni che fuma.
neg stand
G.
that smokes.
‘I can’t stand G. smoking.’
*Maria ballare è piuttosto comune.
M.
dance is rather
common.
‘Mary dance is rather common.’
*Maria ballare è ovunque.
M.
dance is everywhere.
‘Mary dance is everywhere.’
*Maria che ballava fù
piuttosto comune.
M.
that danced be.past rather
common.
‘Mary dancing was rather common.’
*Maria che ballava fù
ovunque.
M.
that danced be.past everywhere.
‘Mary dancing was everywhere.’
Maria che balla è piuttosto comune.
M.
that dances is rather
common.
‘Mary dancing is rather common.’
Compatibility with Kind Anaphora
??Una ragazza correre . . .
A
girl
run.inf.
‘A girl running’
tutti abbiamo visto una cosa cosı̀.
we all saw this kind of thing
Una ragazza che correva . . .
A girl
that run.impf.
‘A girl running’
*tutti abbiamo visto una cosa cosı̀.
we all saw this kind of thing
Una ragazza che corre.
A girl
that runs.
‘A girl running’.
tutti abbiamo visto una cosa cosı̀.
we all saw this kind of thing
Maria che balla è ovunque.
M.
that dances is everywhere.
‘Mary dancing is everywhere.’
⇠ different instances of the kind ’Mary dancing’ are
in all relevant places.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Berit Gehrke, Gianina Iordăchioaia and Giorgos Spathas for helpful comments and suggestions. This research was funded by the DFG – Leibniz Prize AL
554/8-1 to Artemis Alexiadou and the Insight SSHRC Research Grant 435-2015-0454 to Junko Shimoyama (PI) and Keir Moulton.