Situationsargumente im Nominalbereich

Christian Fortmann, Anja Lübbe, Irene Rapp, Christian Fortmann, Anja Lübbe, Irene Rapp

• Verlag: De Gruyter
• Jahr: 2015
• ISBN:
  9783110433173
• Auflage: 1
• Thema: Languages & Linguistics
• Thema: Linguistics

In der linguistischen Theorie spielen Situationsargumente als Komponenten der lexikalisch-semantischen Repräsentation im Bereich verbaler Kategorien eine zentrale Rolle. Die Beiträge des Sammelbandes erweitern das Postulat eines Situationsarguments auf den Bereich deverbaler Wortbildungsprodukte. Sie thematisieren den Status von Situationsargumenten anhand nominaler Einheiten mit einem verbalen Bestandteil. Die zentrale Frage dabei ist, wie und mit welchen syntaktischen und semantischen Reflexen ein (verbales) Situationsargument auf Wortebene kompositional in eine nominale Gesamtbedeutung eingehen kann. Anhand der für die verbalen Kategorien etablierten Diagnostiken werden in den einzelnen Beiträgen differenzierte Analysen zur Integration und Interpretation des Situationsarguments deverbaler Kategorien entwickelt. Dabei werden zugleich die unterschiedlichen Formen nominaler Strukturbildung (Derivation, Komposition, Konversion) abgedeckt. Der Band umfasst einen ersten Teil zu Nomen mit verbalem Bestandteil und in einen zweiten Teil zu Partizipien in adjektivischer Distribution. Zur Einführung ist ein Überblicksartikel vorangestellt, der die formalen Grundlagen für eine syntakto-semantische Erfassung von Situationsargumenten skizziert.

___

Teil III: Das Situationsargument bei Partizipien in Adjektivposition

Alexander Pfaff

On the Temporal Anchoring of Participial Events (in German)93

Abstract: This paper argues that present participles do not uniformly have the same semantic type. In particular, I will show that predicative participles are event phrases: <v,t>, but attributive participles are aspect phrases: <i,t>. Empirical evidence for this claim comes from two observations: (i) Predicative participles cannot be modified by temporal adverbials (and a range of other modifiers), only by event modifiers like manner adverbials etc., whereas attributive participles allow all kinds of modifiers, in particular temporal modifiers. (ii) Simultaneity effects; the event denoted by predicative participles necessarily occurs simultaneously with the event denoted by the matrix verb, whereas attributive participles in definite noun phrases are temporally independent. The fact that attributive participles in indefinite noun phrases show simultaneity effect can be explained, I argue, as a consequence of the determiner semantics.

Keywords: present participle, (non-)simultaneity, modification, event phrase, aspect phrase.

1 Introduction

1.1 Temporal Interpretation of Noun Phrases

It has been noted in the literature that the temporal interpretation of a noun phrase may be independent of the tense denoted by a finite verb. In other words, a sentence can be true if an NP predicate applies to an individual at a time distinct from the time referred to by the tense of the finite verb. This is most evident in cases where the NP predicate and the VP predicate denote contradictory properties, i.e. properties that cannot both hold simultaneously of the same individual, cf.:

(1)Every fugitive is now in jail (Enç 1986: 409)

One cannot be a fugitive and in jail at the same time; nonetheless (1) is perfectly fine given a context in which some individuals were on the run at some past time, but were all arrested before the utterance time of (1). Based on examples like (1) and similar cases, Enç (1981, 1986) argues that the temporal interpretation of noun phrases in general is semantically independent of the tense of a respective sentence, restricted only by pragmatic considerations, i.e. the availability of a plausible context.

Musan (1995, 1999), however, argues convincingly that this claim is too strong: temporal independence is available only for presuppositional noun phrases (partitives, definite and strong noun phrases), not for non-presuppositional ones (weak noun phrases under their cardinal reading). Essentially, what determines whether a noun phrase is presuppositional or not is the determiner heading the noun phrase.94 In some cases, this distinction may only be brought about by the intonation pattern, cf. the contrast in (2):

(2) [talking about students' progress] (Musan 1999: 634/5)

a. SOME college students were lazy in high school.

b. #Some COLLEGE students were lazy in high school.

The intonation pattern in (2a) leads to a partitive (strong) reading, under which the noun phrase some college students may receive a temporally independent interpretation and refer to some individuals who are current college students and former high school students. The intonation pattern in (2b) leads to a cardinal reading and the same noun phrase allows only the contradictory temporally dependent interpretation, under which the individuals talked about are simultaneously college students and high school students.

1.2 Present Participles

The same effect of determiners on temporal interpretation can be seen if the noun is modified by a present participle (henceforth P1): 95

(3) a. Der tanzende Mann saß an der Bar.

the dancingmansat atthe bar

‘The dancing man was sitting at the bar.’

b. #Ein tanzender Mann saß an der Bar.

adancingmansatatthebar

‘A dancing man was sitting at the bar.’

(3a) can felicitously be uttered in a context where a (familiar) individual is sitting at the bar at some salient past time, but dancing at some other salient past time.96 In other words, the temporal anchoring of the participle event (PE) is independent of that of the matrix event (ME)/the tense. In (3b), only the contradictory reading where a man is simultaneously dancing and sitting at the bar is available. This difference with respect to the temporal interpretation of PEs is due to the difference between the definite (= presuppositional) and indefinite (= non-presuppositional) determiners, respectively. See also Rapp (2014) for a discussion of examples like (3).

There is, however, another distinction relevant to the temporal interpretation of participle phrases, namely whether they are used attributively as in (3), or predicatively, cf.:

(4)#Der/ein Mann saß tanzend an der Bar.

the/amansatdancing at the bar

‘The/a man sat at the bar dancing.'

In (4), the participle phrase is a constituent of the extended verbal projection, not of a noun phrase. As is the case in (3b), only the (contradictory) simultaneous reading is available. Contrary to (3b), however, this cannot be due to a determiner. Moreover, there is a systematic difference between attributive and predicative participle phrases: the former can be temporally modified, the latter cannot:

(5)a. Der [5 Minuten zuvor tanzende] Mann saß an der Bar.

the [5 minutes before dancing] man sat at the bar

b. Ein [5 Minuten zuvor tanzender] Mann saß an der Bar.

a [5 minutes before dancing] man sat at the bar

c. #Der/ein Mann saß [5 Minuten zuvor tanzend] an der Bar. the/a man sat [5 minutes before dancing] at the bar

While an analysis based on Musan's (1995, 1999) distinction between non-presuppositional and presuppositional determiners, cf. for instance Kusumoto (1999, 2000, 2005) and Rapp (2014), can explain the contrast in (3), it cannot explain the contrast in (5). I will argue that there is an additional dimension relevant to the temporal interpretation of participial phrases, namely the distinction between attributive and predicative participles,97 and that the difference in (5) is due to a structural difference which, in turn leads to a difference of the semantic types: 98

–Predicative participles are event phrases (<v,t>) that do not contain a topic time to which the PE may be related. The event time of the matrix predicate (ME) serves as a reference time for that event.

–Attributive participles are aspect phrases (<i,t>). The aspectual operator on top of the embedded event phrase introduces a separate topic time to which the PE is related.

The structure of the paper is as follows: In the remainder of this section, I will introduce some terminology and theoretical assumptions. In section 2, I will discuss the three occurrences of participle phrases mentioned above and their temporal interpretation in more detail. In particular, I will show that the notion simultaneity, often associated with the P1, needs refining. In section 3, I will discuss temporal modification of participle phrases and show that this criterion sets attributive P1s – whether in definite or indefinite noun phrases – apart from predicative P1s. I will argue that this distinct...

Inhaltsverzeichnis

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Christian Fortmann, Anja Lübbe, Irene Rapp Einführung
• Teil I: Das Situationsargument in der LF-Architektur
• Teil II: Das Situationsargument bei Nomen
• Teil III: Das Situationsargument bei Partizipien in Adjektivposition
• Register
• Fußnoten