Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 23, No. 0, pp.768-784
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 30 Jan 2023
Received 07 Aug 2023 Revised 18 Aug 2023 Accepted 21 Sep 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.23..202309.768

Progressive achievements in English

Jungmee Lee
Associate Professor, Dept. of English Language and Literature, Seoul National University, Tel: 02-880-6105 jungmeelee@snu.ac.kr


© 2023 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This paper explores the preliminary process reading that arises from achievements in the progressive. The meaning of the progressive as a partitive operator poses challenges in the formalization of its occurrence with punctual predicates like achievements. I discuss problems with prior proposals (Rothstein 2004, Bohnemeyer 2005), and argue that the preliminary process reading should be accounted for in terms of the meaning of achievements rather than the meaning of the progressive. Based on Bach’s (1981) subdivision of achievements, I propose to analyze culmination-achievements as denoting a set of complex events which consist of a preliminary process and its culmination, while analyzing happening-achievements as a set of simple events of culmination. I show how the lexical specifications of the two subtypes of achievements result in the different patterns in the progressive. Furthermore, I argue that culmination-achievements differ from accomplishments in terms of the discourse statuses of the implications which are associated with their two subevents. Building on previous studies on projective contents (e.g. Simons et al. 2011, Tonhauser et al. 2013, 2018), I take a close look at the properties of the process implication triggered by culmination-achievements, and show that it is projective content.

Keywords:

achievements, progressive, imperfective paradox, culmination, happening, projective content

References

  • Abbott, B. 2000. Presuppositions as non-assertions. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1419-1437. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00108-3]
  • Abbott, B. 2008. Presuppositions and common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 31, 523-538. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9048-8]
  • Abrusán, M. 2016. Presupposition cancellation: explaining the ‘soft-hard’ trigger distinction. Natural Language Semantics 24, 165–202. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-016-9122-7]
  • Abusch, D. 2010. Presupposition triggering from alternatives. Journal of Semantics 27, 37-80. [https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp009]
  • Asher, N. 1992. A default, truth conditional semantics for the progressive. Linguistics and Philosophy 15, 463-508. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630628]
  • Bach, E. 1981. On time, tense, and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics. In P. Cole, ed., Radical Pragmatics, 63–81. New York: Academic Press.
  • Beaver, D. and B. Geurts. 2013. Presupposition. In E. N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/presupposition/, .
  • Bennett, M. and B. Partee. 1972. Towards the Logic of Tense and Aspect in English. Santa Monica, California: System Development Corporation.
  • Bohnemeyer, J. 2005. Gradability and the correct analysis of progressive achievements. Handout for the session “Reference, properties, and events” at the 2005 Annual Meeting of LSA, Oakland, CA.
  • Bonomi, A. 1997. The progressive and the structure of events. Journal of Semantics 14, 173-205. [https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/14.2.173]
  • Carlson, L. 1981. Aspect and quantification. In P. Tedeschi and A. Zaenen, eds., Tense and Aspect, Volume 14 of Syntax and Semantics, 31-64. New York: Academic Press. [https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004373112_004]
  • Chierchia, G. and S. McConnell-Ginet. 1990. Meaning and Grammar. Cambridge.: MIT Press.
  • Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Condoravdi, C. 2002. Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. In D. Beaver, L. C. Martinez, B. Clark and S. Kaufmann, eds., The Construction of Meaning, 59-87. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
  • Dowty, D. 1972. Studies in the Logic of Verb Aspect and Time Reference in English. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, USA.
  • Dowty, D. 1977. Towards a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English ‘imperfective progressive’. Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 45-78. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351936]
  • Dowty, D. 1979. Word Meaning in Montague Grammar. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7]
  • Dowty, D. 1986. The effects of aspectual class on the temporal structure of discourse: Semantics or pragmatics? Linguistics and Philosophy 9(1), 37-61. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627434]
  • Filip, H. 1999. Aspect, Eventuality Types and Nominal Reference. New York: Garland Publishing.
  • Geurts, B. 1999. Presuppositions and Pronouns. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Gyarmathy, Z. 2015. Achievements, Durativity and Scales. Doctoral dissertation, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Germany.
  • Heyde-Zybatow, T. 2008. What kind of events do achievements describe? In A. Steube, ed., The Discourse Potential of Underspecified Structures, 109-144. Berlin: De Gruyter, [https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110209303.2.109]
  • Hinrichs, E. 1986. Temporal anaphora in discourses of English. Linguistics and Philosophy 9(1), 63-82. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627435]
  • Jayez, J., V. Mongelli, A. Reboul and J-B. Henst. 2015. Weak and strong triggers. In F. Schwarz, ed., Experimental Perspectives on Presuppositions, 173-193. Berlin: Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07980-6_8]
  • Kamp, H. and C. Rohrer. 1983. Tense in texts. In R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze and A. von Stechow, eds., Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, 250-269. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110852820.250]
  • Karttunen, L. 1974. Presuppositions and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1, 182-194. [https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1974.1.1-3.181]
  • Kearns, K. S. 2003. Durative achievements and individual-level predicates on events. Linguistics and Philosophy 26, 595-635. [https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025803912153]
  • Klein, W. 1994. Time in Language. New York: Routledge.
  • Kratzer, A. 1977. What “must” and “can” must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 337-355. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00353453]
  • Kratzer, A. 1981. The notional category of modality. In H.-J. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser, eds., Words, Worlds, and Contexts: New Approaches in World Semantics, Research in Text Theory, vol. 6, 38–74. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
  • Landman, F. 1992. The progressive. Natural Language Semantics 1, 1-32. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342615]
  • Link, G. 1983. The logical analysis of plural and mass nouns: A lattice-theoretic approach. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze and A. von Stechow, eds., Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, 303–323. Berlin: de Gruyter. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110852820.302]
  • Martin, F. 2011. Revisiting the distinction between accomplishments and achievements. In W. de Mulder, J. Mortelmans and T. Mortelmans, eds., Cahiers Chronos From Now to Eternity 22, 43–64. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. [https://doi.org/10.1163/9789042032682_004]
  • Mittwoch, A. 1991. In defense of Vendler’s achievements. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 6, 71-85. [https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.6.05mit]
  • Moens, M. and M. Steedman. 1988. Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics 14, 15-28.
  • Partee, B. H. 1984. Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 7(3), 243-286. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627707]
  • Piñón, C. 1997. Achievements in an event semantics. In A. Lawson, ed., Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 7, 273-296. Ithaca, New York: CLC Publications. [https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v7i0.2781]
  • Piñón, C. 2008. Negating right boundary achievements (comments on Malink). In A. Steube, ed., The Discourse Potential of Underspecified Structures, 163-175. Berlin: De Gruyter. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110209303.2.163]
  • Portner, P. 1998. The progressive in modal semantics. Language 74, 760-787. [https://doi.org/10.2307/417002]
  • Potts, C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199273829.001.0001]
  • Potts, C. 2007. The Expressive Dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2), 165-198. [https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.011]
  • Rothstein, S. 2004. Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Aspect. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470759127]
  • Rullmann, H. and L. Matthewson. 2018. Towards a theory of modal-temporal interaction. Language 94, 281-331. [https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0018]
  • Simons, M., J. Tonhauser, D. Beaver and C. Roberts. 2011. What projects and why. In N. Li and D. Lutz, eds., Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 22, 309-327. Ithaca, New York: CLC Publications. [https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v20i0.2584]
  • Smith, C. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7911-7]
  • Smith, E. and K. Hall. 2011. The relationship between projection and embedding environment. In A. Beltrama, T. Chatzikonstantinou, J. L. Lee, M. Pham and D. Rak, eds., Proceedings of the 48th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 563–578. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
  • Stalnaker, R. C. 1998. On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7, 3-19. [https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008254815298]
  • Stalnaker, R. C. 2008. A response to Abbott on presupposition and common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 31, 539-544. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-008-9047-9]
  • Tonhauser, J. 2015. Are ‘informative presuppositions’ presuppositions? Language and Linguistic Compass 9(2), 77-101. [https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12119]
  • Tonhauser, J., D. Beaver, C. Roberts and M. Simons. 2013. Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89, 66-109. [https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0001]
  • Tonhauser, J., D. Beaver and J. Degen. 2018. How projective is projective content? Gradience in projectivity and at-issueness. Journal of Semantics 35, 495-542. [https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffy007]
  • Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. [https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501743726]
  • Verkuyl, H. J. 1989. Aspectual classes and aspectual composition. Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 39-94. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627398]
  • Xue, J. and E. Onea. 2011. Correlation between projective meaning and at-issueness: An empirical study. In G. Kierstead, ed., Proceedings of the 2011 ESSLLI workshop on projective content, 171-184. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.