Abstract
In the previous chapters, I have argued that, within the VP, there is a landing site position for objects and that this position is the Specifier position of an event-related category, Inner Aspect. This raises the question of whether there is any relation between objects and aspect. In our discussion of aspectual predicate classes in the last chapter, we saw that the shape of the object can affect the aspectual predicate class. This is at least suggestive of a link between objects and Inner Aspect. In this chapter, I look at the relationship more closely, especially as it relates to grammatical issues such as case marking and syntactic position. I show how they may be related and then answer specific questions about this relationship.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The interaction with case assignment is different in Hindi as, according to Mahajan, the imperfective assigns accusative case while the perfective does not. This is the reverse of Finnish. However, accusative, absolutive, and nominative case are all zero-marked in Hindi, so giving them names is theory-internal. One can think of it as follows: the functional head related to structural case is associated with perfectivity and the accusative case assigned by imperfective verb forms is an inherent case.
- 2.
Eat at does not exist in many English speakers’ dialect, but they nevertheless find (7b) quite comprehensible. While not a minimal pair, one can see the difference between The child ate the apple and The child picked at the apple.
- 3.
Koto is added to the stative construction to avoid use of the topic marker -wa.
- 4.
‘ga is a portmanteau for ag and the genitive pronoun (see Ramchand 1997: 30). Normally genitive DPs appear after the V.
- 5.
Here, rather than glossing the root, Ramchand leaves it in its untranslated form iarr.
- 6.
To the extent that (16b) is acceptable, it describes the preparatory stage of “looking for” not “finding”; see Smith (1991: 114) for more discussion of this point.
- 7.
Thanks to Gustavo Beritognolo for the Spanish data and related discussion.
- 8.
In a footnote, Ramchand notes that the Accomplishment form of this verb can also mean ‘a completed act of seeking to get’.
- 9.
Here I assume that ‘see’ is the Achievement version of this verb.
- 10.
As discussed in the previous chapter, the object in question must be an incremental object in order to be relevant. Since the direct objects of push or stir do not measure out the event, accusative case assignment is irrelevant.
- 11.
There may be cases where the copula be itself assigns case (see Lasnik (1991) and Maling and Sprouse (1995)). This issue requires further investigation.
- 12.
Cinque places progressive aspect between terminative and completive. I assume that completive is most similar to Inner Aspect. Progressive would be the lowest Outer Aspect and therefore the one that can enter into an Agree relationship with Inner Aspect.
- 13.
To be fair, since Borer technically has no positions within the VP, appearing outside the VP is trivial. What is more important to me is that the event measurement position of the object be below the merged position of the external argument.
- 14.
The Condition on Extraction Domains (Huang 1982: 505) is given below:
Condition on Extraction Domains
A phrase A may be extracted out of a domain B only if B is properly governed.
- 15.
It is not clear whether this construction is ungrammatical for purely syntactic reasons given the specificity requirements on the fronted object.
- 16.
I thank Eva Dobler and Susi Wurmbrand for help with these data.
- 17.
Kornfilt (1984: 206ff and especially 250, footnote 27) also describes a typology of direct objects in Turkish. I will concentrate on Aydemir’s account as it relates the object typology to event structure.
- 18.
Kornfilt (1984: 250, footnote 27) suggests that if the caseless DPs are made “heavy” enough, they can act more like the overtly case-marked DPs.
- 19.
I have changed Kornfilt’s transcription to make it consistent with the system used by Aydemir.
- 20.
The notion of inherent accusative case requires more research.
- 21.
I have noted the data that come from my own field notes (FN) and which consultant supplied them (RH).
- 22.
K&R refers to Keenan and Ralalaoherivony (2000).
- 23.
This example is considered grammatical by Keenan and Ralalaoherivony (2000: 81) but my consultant did not accept it. I have found that this type of possessor raising varies considerably across speakers. What is important is that the same speaker who rejects (44c) accepts (46c) below, showing that the obligatory lack of determiner does not ensure linear adjacency.
- 24.
Aydemir has other tests for the bare N which are important to her discussion but work less well for the instrumental NP in Malagasy. She shows that bare Ns do not represent an entity in discourse, and thus they cannot be referred to, for example. Further, they cannot be modified. For Malagasy instrumentals, I have mixed results on these issues with my consultants. Paul (2004), however, shows that a bare possessee cannot introduce an entity into discourse. However, like the bare instrumentals above, it can be separated from the verb by the VP-internal Agent.
- 25.
This V movement alone distinguishes it from the V+N movement that occurs in Niuean. For Massam (2001), the complex movement is an indication of XP predicate fronting. In Malagasy, verb movement is clearly head movement.
- 26.
One may look to separable prefixes in German for an alternative account. In other words, perhaps only part of the complex predicate moves. However, I assume a late adjunction analysis of separable prefixes in German (see Newell 2005). Such an analysis cannot be extended to the Malagasy facts since the element that would have to be analyzed as the adjunct would be an argument of the head. Late adjunction of an argument is unacceptable in Newell’s analysis.
- 27.
There are many other languages that allow bare NPs appear in a position adjacent to the verb such as Niuean (Massam 2001) and Hindi (Dayal 1999). Without further research, I make no claims about these languages.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Travis, L.d. (2010). Interaction of Objects and Aspect. In: Inner Aspect. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 80. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8550-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8550-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8549-8
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-8550-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)