Textures of Time [Reprint 2014 ed.] 9783050084015, 9783050040745

Citation preview

Monika Rathert Textures of Time

studia grammatica Herausgegeben von Manfred Bierwisch unter Mitwirkung von Hubert Haider, Stuttgart Paul Kiparsky, Stanford Angelika Kratzer, Amherst Jürgen Kunze, Berlin David Pesetsky, Cambridge (Massachusetts) Dieter Wunderlich, Düsseldorf

studia grammatica 59

Monika Rathert

Textures of Time

Akademie Verlag

ISBN 3-05-004074-2 ISSN 0081-6469 © Akademie Verlag GmbH, Berlin 2004 Das eingesetzte Papier ist alterungsbeständig nach DIN/ISO 9706. Alle Rechte, insbesondere die der Übersetzung in andere Sprachen, vorbehalten. Kein Teil des Buches darf ohne Genehmigung des Verlages in irgendeiner Form - durch Photokopie, Mikroverfilmung oder irgendein anderes Verfahren - reproduziert oder in eine von Maschinen, insbesondere von Datenverarbeitungsmaschinen, verwendbare Sprache übertragen oder übersetzt werden. All rights reserved (including those of translation into another languages). No part of this book may be reproduced in any form - by photoprinting, microfilm, or any other means - nor transmitted or translated into a machine language without written permission from the publishers. Druck und Bindung: Medienhaus Berlin Printed in the Federal Republic of Germany

Abstract

This thesis is about three interrelated things: the German and English Present Perfect, durative adverbs (bis 'until', seit 'since', lang 'for', until, since, for) and ExtendedNow-adverbs (schon oft 'often ever since', schon immer 'ever since', (schon) seit 'already since', ever since). The Perfect, durative adverbs, and Extended-Now-adverbs: in which respects are they interrelated? For the Perfect and durative adverbs, an interrelation has always been suggested in the literature: there are universal/existential ambiguities in Perfectsentences containing durative adverbs. These ambiguities are claimed to disappear if there is no Perfect. The traditional conclusion is that there must be an intimate interrelation between the Perfect and durative adverbs. I will show with authentic data from the web that this is false, the universal/ existential ambiguities are not limited to the Perfect. - As for the Perfect and Extended-Now-adverbs, the literature has not claimed that there is an interrelation. But I will show that there is a very intimate one. The behavior of Extended-Now-adverbs makes the traditional Reichenbachian Perfectsemantics untenable and suggests instead that the correct Perfect-semantics is the Extended-Now-theory. As for the mentioned universal/ existential ambiguities connected to durative adverbs, there are actually two different kinds of them. The first one I call "simple universal/ existential-ambiguity"; it is associated with lang 'for' and for. John has been in Boston for two weeks is ambiguous between the two weeks being somewhere in the past (this is called the existential reading) and the two weeks being in the past but abutting speech time (this is called the universal reading). I will analyze this in terms of underspecification: somewhere within the Extended-Now-interval denoted by the Perfect, the event takes place. The second of the aforementioned universal/ existential ambiguities associated with durative adverbs I call "complex universal/ existential-ambiguity". It is associated with bis 'until', seit 'since', until, and since. John has been in Boston since Tuesday is ambiguous between him being there all the time (universal reading) and him being there at least once (existential reading). So far, the literature has only acknowledged this ambiguity for since and (marginally) for seit 'since', and only in combination with the Perfect. I will show with authentic data that this ambiguity exists with all durative adverbs and with all tenses. I will analyze it as a scope ambiguity of the durative adverb and a possibly covert frequency adverb. If the durative adverb has scope over the frequency adverb, the existential reading emerges. And if the frequency adverb has scope over the durative adverb, we get the universal reading.

In Liebe meinem Mann Tobias Weller

Acknowledgements

The title "Textures of Time" is a borrowing from Vladimir Nabokov's novel "Ada or Ardor: a family chronicle" (Nabokov (1969)). It refers to Van Veen's witty manuscript "The Texture of Time", which is cited in the fourth chapter of Ada. While working on this thesis, I had fruitful discussions with several researchers who offered helpful comments. I would like to thank Dorit Abusch, Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Fabrizio Arosio, Veronika Ehrich, Fritz Hamm, Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen, Caroline Fery, Anastasia Giannakidou, Cornelia Hamann, Michela Ippolito, Jacques Jayez, Graham Katz, Winnie Lechner, Renate Musan, Irene Rapp, Kjell Johan Sasbe, Uli Sauerland, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, Hubert Truckenbrodt, and Tanja Zybatow. Different parts of this thesis were presented at the following conferences: Sinn und Bedeutung (Düsseldorf, October 1999, Konstanz, October 2002), ConSOLE (Vienna, December 1999), Penn Linguistics Colloquium (Philadelphia, February 2000), The Perfect Workshop (Thessaloniki, May 2000), CLS 38 (Chicago, April 2002), (Preferably) Non-Lexical Semantics (Paris, June 2002), and German Comparative Linguistics and Literature (Sevilla, December 2003). I thank all these audiences for their comments. Special thanks go to my supervisors Veronika Ehrich and Arnim von Stechow. Both allowed me to teach together with them about tense and adverbs in Tübingen when this thesis was still in the making. I am very grateful for this, because I enjoy teaching very much and many things became clear to me when I explained them to the students. Veronika made me aware of the huge amount of literature on the topic, especially on the side of Germanic linguistics. She was very supportive in lots of ways and always had an open ear for my worries. I am very grateful for her supervision, also for pushing me to finish the thesis quickly. - The discussions I had with Arnim were most interesting. Due to my less-developed climbing abilities, Arnim and I never went together on a mountain-tour. But tense-tours we had a lot, and I hope he likes the tour I take in this thesis. I cannot thank him enough for his valuable comments and support. Many thanks go to Manfred Bierwisch and Akademie Publishers for including the publication of this thesis in the studia grammatica series. Finally, very special thanks go to my beloved husband Tobias Weiler. Being truly supportive, he nevertheless constantly reminded me of the fact that there is life outside linguistics.

Table of contents

1. 2.

3.

4. 5. 6.

Introduction 11 Looking at previous analyses 17 2.1 The German Perfect 19 2.1.1 Anteriority-theories 19 2.1.2 Extended-Now-theories 35 2.1.3 Syncategorematic theories 37 2.2 The English Perfect 45 2.2.1 Anteriority-theories 45 2.2.2 Extended-Now-theories 48 2.2.3 Syncategorematic theories 52 2.3 Duratives and XN-Adverbs 59 2.3.1 seit 'since' and bis 'until' 61 2.3.2 for and since 71 2.3.3 schon oft 'often ever since', schon immer 'ever since', and ever since 99 2.4 Summary 103 Presenting my own proposals 107 3.1 My proposals for the Perfect 108 3.1.1 The German Perfect 108 3.1.2 The English Perfect 135 3.2 My proposals for Duratives and XN-Adverbs 141 3.2.1 Duratives and the complex u/e-ambiguity 141 3.2.2 Duratives and the simple u/e-ambiguity 174 3.2.3 XN-Adverbs 183 3.3 My data from the web 191 3.3.1 Data concerning the complex u/e-ambiguity 191 3.3.2 Special issue: s/wce-adverbs with an 'inclusive' e-reading 212 3.3.3 Data concerning the simple u/e-ambiguity 215 3.3.4 Special issue: sentence-initial/or-adverbs with an e-reading .. 223 3.3.5 Data concerning XN-adverbs 227 List of meaning rules 243 Summary 245 Bibliography 247

1. Introduction

This thesis is about the German and English Present Perfect in relation to two classes of adverbs. The first class consists of temporal adverbs expressing duration (bis 'until', seit 'since', lang 'for') and has often been argued to be interrelated to the Present Perfect, but as I argue, it is not. The second class contains Extended-Now-adverbs like schon immer 'ever since', i.e. adverbs denoting a time span that starts in the past and reaches up until speech time. This class has never been related to the Perfect before. However, I show that there is a very intimate interrelation. Extended-Now-adverbs make the traditional Reichenbachian Perfect-semantics untenable and suggest strongly that the correct Perfect-semantics is the Extended-Now-theory. I adopt this theory of the Perfect for both German and English. One important aspect of this thesis is my web-based data collection. My data show that a lot of claims made in the literature do not hold, which has important consequences for linguistic theory. I assume the following meaning rules for the German and English Perfect, respectively: (1)

German: F(PerfGenn)(P)(t)= 1 iff 3t'e Di [t'=x=t& P(t')]

(2)

English: F(PerfEngi)(P)(t)=l iff 3t'e Di [ f c o t & P(t')]

This means, the Perfect (in both languages) establishes an interval of time t' that abuts the time t. I call this interval t' the Extended-Now-interval. The main typological difference between the English and the German Perfect is this: the English ExtendedNow-interval includes the time t, the German Extended-Now-interval excludes it. This is why the continuation of the English sentence in (3) is ungrammatical, whereas the continuation of the corresponding German sentence in (4) is OK: (3)

She has lived in New York ever since, * but she is living in L.A. now.

(4)

Sie hat schon immer in Frankfurt gewohnt, aber seit heute wohnt sie in she has already always in Frankfurt lived but since today lives she in München Munich 'she has lived in Frankfurt ever since, but she is living in Munich today'

The time t that the Perfect takes as an argument comes from the Tense-projection. Thus, I decompose the Present Perfect into the tense "Present" and the "Perfect" itself. This splitting is more than a writing convention. I show that in the case of the Future Perfect (cf. (5)), there are adverbs that scope between Tense and the Perfect:

12

1. Introduction (5)

Sie hat die Arbeit morgen abgegeben she has the work tomorrow delivered 'she will have delivered the work by tomorrow' The analysis of (5) involves not only a Perfect, but also the Future tense, as it has a futurate meaning. If the Future denotes all the time following the Now, it must be intersected with tomorrow. And after that is done, the Perfect applies. Thus, tomorrow scopes between the Future Tense and the Perfect. My view of the Perfect is motivated by the behavior of the Extended-Now-adverbs schon immer/ schon oft. Extended-Now-adverbs occur only with the Perfect and Pluperfect; they are impossible with the Preterite. Only an Extended-Now-theory can deal with these adverbs. Extended-Now-adverbs show that the Reichenbachian tradition (the principal rival of Extended-Now-theory) fails. Up to the writing of this dissertation, the importance of Extended-Now-adverbs with respect to the theory of the Perfect hasn't been recognized in the literature. But Extended-Now-adverbs are important because their behavior in fact decides (like the litmus test) between possible theories of the Perfect. Extended-Now-adverbs denote the Extended-Now, i.e. a time span that starts in the past and reaches up until speech time. Thus, in sentences like Ich habe mir schon immer ein Fahrrad gewünscht ('I always wanted a bike'), the wishing started in the past and reaches up until speech time. This refutes the traditional Reichenbachian Anteriority-semantics of the Perfect, which says that the event time properly precedes reference time (and reference time is identical to speech time). Moreover, as the example cannot be changed to the Preterite (*Ich wünschte mir schon immer ein Fahrrad), the data suggest strongly that the correct Perfect-semantics is the Extended-Nowtheory. Adverbs like schon immer identify with the Extended-Now-interval. This is why they are impossible with the Preterite: the Preterite doesn't denote such an Extended-Now-interval. Therefore, I adopt the Extended-Now-theory of the Perfect. As for the aforementioned durative adverbs that are often claimed to interact with the Perfect, these are famous for universal/ existential ambiguities. There are actually two different kinds of u/e-ambiguities. The first one I call "simple universal/ existential-ambiguity"; it is associated with lang 'for' in German and with for in English. John has been in Boston for two weeks is ambiguous between the two weeks being somewhere in the past (this is called the existential reading) and the two weeks being in the past but abutting speech time (this is called the universal reading). I analyze this in terms of underspecification1: somewhere within the Extended-Nowinterval denoted by the Perfect, the event takes place - and it is simply unspecified whether the event is more or less at the right edge of the Extended-Now-interval (the right edge is the speech time): (6) Charly ist drei Wochen lang gerannt Charly is three weeks long run 'Charly ran for three weeks'

Here, underspecification is not meant in the technical sense of the word, cf. (Pinkal, 1996).

13

1. Introduction (7)

tree for 'Charly ist drei Wochen lang gerannt'

3 Pf EP 3 Wochenlang

Charly gerannt

However, the traditional analysis of the simple universal/ existential-ambiguity is not one of underspecification. Instead, most researchers have been looking for a syntactic solution because preposing^or seems to exclude the existential reading: For two weeks, John has been in Boston. If this sentence only had the universal reading (where the two weeks abut speech time), the analysis should indeed have a syntactic component. However, I show with authentic data from the web that there is no such correlation between preposing and universal reading: (8)

This is an existential reading! My son started high school this year. I had heard someone say that this school had some healthy choices. NOT!!! For two weeks he has eaten tacos without cheese, chicken nuggets and fries. His other choices were popcorn shrimp and onion rings and sodas. This not only costs too much ($ 4) but is death food. I called the man who oversees the buying and planning of all the school lunches. He claims that fast food is what kids get at home, and if kids are going to buy the school lunches, he needs to supply them with food they know and will buy. He claims that if he served them healthier food that the food service couldn't sustain itself because not enough kids would buy lunch. I suggested he might offer baked potatoes, rice, choices without cheese, and grilled meats and vegetables. And for about a month I saw changes on the menu. Then, back to the worst (http://www.healthyawareness.com/_Archives/_cdiscl/0000022b.htm)

Thus, the traditional search for a syntactic solution is a red herring, and underspecification is the way to go. The second of the aforementioned universal/ existential ambiguities associated with durative adverbs I call "complex universal/ existential-ambiguity". It is associated with bis 'until', seit 'since', until, and since. John has been in Boston since Tuesday is ambiguous between him being there all the time (universal reading) and him being there at least once (existential reading). So far, the literature has only acknowledged this ambiguity for since and (marginally) for seit 'since', and only in combination with the Per-

14

1. Introduction

feet. I show with authentic data that this ambiguity exists with all durative adverbs and with all tenses. Here is one of the many examples from the thesis: (9)

This is an existential reading! Gleichzeitig fordert er Kiel auf, das Thema Nordseeverschmutzung durch Seeschiffe auf die Tagesordnung der nächsten Umweltminister-Konferenz der norddeutschen Länder zu setzen. So könnte Druck auf Bonn und die Nordseeanrainer ausgeübt werden. Bis gestern wurden auf Föhr, Amrum, Sylt und Hallig Hooge rund 170 verölte Seevögel geborgen. In Dänemark sind es bis gestern Mittag rund 4000 Enten gewesen. Doch es wird mindestens die doppelte Anzahl Tiere befurchtet, die durch Jäger von ihren Leiden erlöst werden müssen. (http://www.sdn-web.de/Oelentsorgung/98-2b.htm) Bis gestern wurden [...] 170 verölte Seevögel geborgen until yesterday were 170 oily seabirds catched 'until yesterday, about 170 oily seabirds were rescued' I analyze the complex u/e-ambiguity as a scope ambiguity of the durative adverb and the (possibly covert) frequency adverb (Bäuerle 1979). If the durative adverb has scope over the frequency adverb, the existential reading emerges (the translation is then something like: there is some ¿w-interval within the Extended-Now-interval, and within this ¿«-interval, the VP happens at least once). And if the frequency adverb has scope over the durative adverb, the universal reading emerges (the translation is then something like: there is some interval within the Extended-Now-interval, and at this ¿«-interval, the VP happens): (10) Charly ist bis gestern gerannt Charly is until yesterday run 'Charly ran until yesterday' (11) trees for 'Charly ist bis gestern gerannt' universalreading

Pres

PP bis gestern

VP Charly gerannt

1. Introduction

15

existentialreading

The analysis differs in essence from the proposals made in the literature so far. Some of these analyses are completely syncategorematic, others assume that at least the durative adverb since is lexically ambiguous. While I want to reject syncategorematic analyses in principle because they are inelegant from a theoretical point of view, I would like to comment on the approaches that assume lexical ambiguity. The claim about lexical ambiguity came up because the impression was that with existential readings, the event could not be located in the time denoted by the argument of since. That is, with the existential reading of John has been in Boston since Tuesday, John could not have been there on Tuesday proper. Thus, the existential reading of the sentence seems to be closely connected to an 'exclusive' reading of since. This would be a sharp contrast to the universal reading of the same sentence, where John's being in Boston would include the whole Tuesday. Thus, the universal reading of the sentence would be connected to an 'inclusive' reading of since. Again, this is the point where my databased research shows its advantages: I list lots of data that show existential sentences with 'inclusive' readings of since. (12) This is an existential reading! The following are some of the effects many of the men who served in Vietnam have aquired and currently have, or have passed away from since Vietnam. This research was aquired via internet searching when I found many members of Charlie Company suffering from the sprayings. (http://www.healthyawareness.com/_Archives/_cdisc 1 /0000022b.htm) Thus, 'inclusiveness' is the way to go for both the universal and the existential readings of the sentence. The assumed lexical ambiguity of since that we find in many approaches is empirically false. This, in turn, shows we have to come up with another account of the complex universal/existential ambiguity. My analysis and data show that we can elegantly capture the facts by postulating a scope ambiguity of the durative adverb and the frequency adverb. As far as I know, this analysis is completely new.

2. Looking at previous analyses

Before I go into the discussion of previous works about the German and English Perfect, let me explain the structuring of this chapter and my basic terminology. The chapter starts with the German Perfect (2.1) and distinguishes between 'Anteriority-theories' (2.1.1) and 'Extended-Now-theories' (2.1.2). Theories that cannot be subsumed under these headings are usually syncategorematic and to be found in 2.1.3. The chapter then goes on with the English Perfect (2.2) and an analogous subdivision. In general, Anteriority-theories locate the event-time E on a time-axis before reference-time R. Anteriority-theories differ in the relation R has to speech time S. Some Anteriority-theories assume that R and S overlap, others say that R may not precede S: (i)

Anteriority-theories: E < R version 1: E < R & R,S ("," means "overlap") version 2: E CR. HAVE p. 589

ntx s e t=n Mary (x) sOt e DCs

VP'(S) [TENSE=pres; STAT=+] VP(s) [PERF=+] H^VE has

vp s

( )[STAT=-] tile

Det the -» CR. definite descriptions p. 299, writingsimplifications p. 511, p. 62

president

president

n tx s e y t=n Mary (x) sOt e=>cs the president (y) e: x meet y

Some technical remarks are necessary here. ± PAST on the S'-node serves to tell you if you have to shift the temporal perspective point (TPpt) to some previously established reference point (+PAST) or not (-PAST). The first option arises in discourses like: Mary got to the station at 9:45. Her train would arrive at 10:05. For the second sentence, you count the relative future from 9:45, the Rpt, on. TENSE is simply tense (tense is expressed by the verb but interpreted at S'). If you look at CR.S' (which is the final version at least in this book, although there is no double frame), you see there are three tenses and the interpretation is as usual. - The referential arguments t, s, s' percolate up and down the tree. It seems to be the case that whenever a new referential argument turns up, it turns up everywhere on the v-projections (on p. 532f. Kamp & Reyle say referential arguments only move down. But note that s must move up from VP' to S, because otherwise CR.HAVE cannot apply). - Finally, there is a printing error in a construction rule: in CR.S' on p. 610 it should be S(t) instead of S(s). Note that I corrected the final DRS on p. 573 of Kamp & Reyle for the purposes of the present discussion. There is a printing error in it: CR.VP' on p. 554 leads to the condition "s O t", not to the condition "t cs". But "t c s " can be inferred from "s O t" & "t=n" as n is a point, cf. (Kamp and Reyle, 1993, p. 539) - if a point overlaps with an interval, he must be included in it.

2.2. The English Perfect

57

The derivation is complicated but does not do more than traditional Anterioritytheory. For, if n is part of an interval that is after e, it must be the case that n is after e, or, in Reichenbachian terms: E2,

symme|ric^in^omogeneity

possible ^

t-loo;

symmetric homogeneity

^ possible

t-2oo;

y ^ asymmetric inhomogeneity

possible t-3oo; symmetric inhomogeneity What we want is of course the first event-arrow: tb should start in 1972 and end at speech time. With this event, tb would have the relation ASYMMETRIC INHOMOGENEITY (see above) with to. This would be the same relation one (namely the middle) tc0 has with to. Remember that there are three possibilities for tc0, thus three arrows: identity with the point of speech time (relation to TO: SYMMETRIC HOMOGENEITY), future including speech time (relation to TO: ASYMMETRIC INHOMOGENEITY), superinterval of

64

2. Looking at previous analyses

speech time stretching to past and future alike (relation to TO: SYMMETRIC INHOMOGENEITY).

What we don't want is the second event-arrow: tb starting in 1972 and extending into the future, even after speech time. With this event, tb would have the relation SYMMETRIC INHOMOGENEITY with TO. This would be the same relation one (namely the last) too has with to. As this second, perverse option cannot be excluded as a meaning of the sentence in question, the since-rule seems to be a little misleading. Let us look at the calculation for the other bracketing now, cf. also the illustration: (2.3-16) SEIT 1972 (PRES (WUPPERTAL EINEN PROZESS FÜHREN)) seit 1972 (PRES (Wuppertal einen Prozeß führen)) is true at (to,To,T K ) iff 1972 is before to and PRES (Wuppertal einen Prozeß fähren) is true at (to,Tb,TK). Tb is the set of all superintervals of to that follow 1972 inhomogenously. (2.3-10a) PRES (Wuppertal einen Prozeß fähren) is true at (to,Tb,TK) iff Wuppertal einen Prozeß fähren is true at (to,Tb,T K ) Wuppertal einen Prozeß fähren is true at (to,Tb,Tjc) iff tb or an element of Tb is a truth interval of Wuppertal einen Prozeß fähren (2.3-17) diagram of (2.3-16) 1972

tb, the being enganged in a trial This is almost correct. The only problem is that "superintervals of to" do not necessarily stop at to, but may extend into the future. This is insinuated with the arrow in the illustration. Insofar, the s/race-rule seems to be a little faulty. In addition, it is irritating that these two bracketings exist at all if they are just meant to mean the same. Now let us go on with the complex u/e-ambiguity associated with seit. (FabriciusHansen, 1986, p. 215) makes the following observation: Eine Betrachtung von Perfektsätzen mit seii-Adverbial [...] läßt deutlich werden, daß solche Sätze grundsätzlich ambig sind zwischen einer 'durativen' und einer 'nicht-durativen' Lesart, die jeweils mit der (c)-Struktur und der (a/b)-Struktur zu korrelieren sind [...]. (88) Es hat seit gestern geregnet (88a) seit gestern (PRÄS (PERF (es regnen))) (88b) PRÄS (seit gestern (PERF (es regnen))) (88c) PRÄS (PERF (seit gestern (es regnen))) Mit (88) kann ausgedrückt werden, daß es irgendwann einmal in der Zeit zwischen 'gestern' (oder einem bestimmten Teil von 'gestern') und der Sprechzeit Regen gegeben hat. Dies ist die mit der (a/b)-Struktur [...] verbundene Deutung [...]. Es kann mit (88) aber auch gemeint sein, daß es

2.3. Duratives and XN-Adverbs

65

seit 'gestern' [...] bis zur Sprechzeit kontinuierlich geregnet hat - genau die Deutung, die die (c)-Struktur [...] verlangen wird I believe she is right, but empirically, the ambiguity can also be found with other tenses. See my se/f-analysis in the next chapter, where the relevant examples are also given. Notice that Fabricius-Hansen could not have this ambiguity with other tenses than Perfect and Pluperfect because it depends on the presence of at least two semantic tenses: narrow scope of seit leads to the u-reading (88c in the quote), wider scope to the e-reading (88a/b). Compare this also to the analysis of the present-tense sentence ""führt die Stadt Wuppertal seit 1975 einen Prozeß" above: the two different bracketings lead to the same meaning. Thus we really need one more operator if we want to have the complex u/e-ambiguity in Fabricius-Hansen's system. Let us now calculate the bracketings given in the quote above. (2.3-18) SEIT GESTERN (PRES (PERF (ES REGNEN))) (=88a in the quote, the ereading) seit gestern (PRES (PERF (es regnen))) is true at (to,To,TK) iff gestern is before to and PRES (PERF (es regnen)) is true at (to,Tb,Tic). Tb is the set of all superintervals of to that follow gestern inhomogenously. (2.3-10a) PRES (PERF (es regnen)) is true at (to,Tb,TK) iff PERF (es regnen) is true at (to,Tb,TK) PERF (es regnen) is true at (to,Tb,TK) iff es regnen is true at (to,T+,TK). T+ is that part of unechter Vergangenheitsbereich 'unreal past' of to which elements are subintervals of tb es regnen is true at (to,T+,TK) iff t+ or an element of T+ is a truth interval of es regnen (2.3-19) diagram of (2.3-18) yesterday

to now

the raining

t+ And indeed, this is the e-reading: the yellow event of raining takes place somewhere within U. Let us look at the u-reading: (2.3-20) PRES (PERF (SEIT GESTERN (ES REGNEN))) (=88c in the quote) PRES (PERF (seit gestern (es regnen))) is true at (to,T0,TK) iff PERF (seit gestern (es regnen)) is true at ( I O , T G O , T K ) . T Q O are superintervals of to.

66

2. Looking at previous analyses PERF {seit gestern (es regnen)) is true at (to,TGo,Tic) iff seit gestern (es regnen) is true at (to,T+,TK). T+ is that part of unechter Vergangenheitsbereich 'unreal past' of to which elements are subintervals of too seit gestern (es regnen) is true at (to,T+,TK) iff gestern is before to and es regnen is true at (to,Tb,TK). Tb is the set of intervals following gestern inhomogenously and standing in the very same relation to to as t+ does. (2.3-10-b) es regnen is true at (to,Tb,Tic) iff tb or an element of Tb is a truth interval of es regnen (2.3-21) diagram of (2.3-20) yesterday

V

to now

^

y

tb, the raining And indeed, this is the u-reading. The relation that holds between tb and to as well as between t+ and to is, again, ASYMMETRIC INHOMOGENEITY.

(Musan, 2000) treats the complex u/e-ambiguity associated with seit and bis. Let us start with seit, cf.: (2.3-22) ||seitp||c = the fiinction f: D, -> D such that for any t*e D i; f(t*)(t**)=l iff t** is a subinterval of the time interval that ends at the left or right boundary of the tense time of the clause, and that starts either at the left boundary or at the right boundary of t*, and that is of unspecified length (Musan, 2000, p. 169) (the se^-rule in (Musan, 2002) is identical to this one here) The subscript "p" of seit in the rule means "positional". This may seem surprising, as seit is usually not classified as a positional adverb but rather as a durative. However, Musan chooses "p" deliberately - she claims that seit is positional: Second, ie?Y-position-adverbials such as seit 12 Uhr ('since 12 o'clock') or seit August 1997 ('since August 1997') consist of seit combined with a kind of position adverbial component; as a whole, they behave like position adverbials although they often exhibit properties of duration adverbials. I.e. the time interval the sezY-adverbial characterizes need not cover all of the time interval provided by the adverbial but yet often does so. (Musan, 2000, p. 169) What is meant by the options in the last sentence of the quote is the complex u/eambiguity. If the se?7-interval covers the whole possible time, we have the u-reading, if it does not, it is the e-reading. Cf. the following example from (Musan, 2000, p. 175): (2.3-23) Eva hat seit 12 Uhr einen Turm gebaut. Eva has since 12 o 'clock a tower built

2.3. Duratives and XN-Adverbs

67

= Since 12 o'clock, Eva was busy building a tower [= u-reading, MR] = Eva built a tower between 12 o'clock and now [= e-reading, MR] Thus, seit is assumed to be vague. I will discuss this soon; let us get back to the meaning-rule for seit above. I do not understand how it is technically possible to refer to the tense time here. Moreover, there seems to be a redundancy involved - if I take a subinterval "of the time interval that ends at the left or right boundary of the tense time [...], and that starts either at the left boundary or at the right boundary of t*", of course this subinterval is of "unspecified length". If the length of the subinterval is not further specified, it will be of unspecified length. Again, seit is assumed to be vague. The factors that determine sett's meaning in a concrete case are not elaborated, but the author says that pragmatics might do: Rather, the truth-interval that is to be located within the time interval introduced by a positional adverbial is free to be either long or short, the choice between these options probably being due to pragmatics. (Musan, 2000,p.189) If there is some overt quantifier like einmal ('once'), the situation is clear: the ereading emerges as the quantifier stands in the 3P-position: (2.3-24) Seit Mai bin ich einmal ins Kino gegangen (Musan, 2000, p. 177) Xt ( 3 t [Xt' (C(t') & PRES (t)(t'))] [Xf (3 a [Xt" (C(t") & PERF (t*)(t"))] [Xt" (einmalp [It"' (C(t'") & seit_Mai (t'M) & ge...t sei-(t")(t"'))] [Xt'" (ich_ins_Kino_gehen(t"'))])])]) This means that a time t"' is a subinterval of the se/Mnterval, and at this t'", I go to the movies. The following example from Musan, without an overt einmal, also comes out OK: (2.3-25) Arnim hat seit gestern einen einzelnen Strumpf gefunden (Musan, 2000, p. 186) Xt (3 T [X.t* (C(t') & PRES (t)(f))] [Xt' (3 a [It" (C(t") & PERF (t')(t"))] [Xt" (3 P [AT (C(tm) & seit_gestern (t'") & ge...t hab-(t")(t"'))] [Xtm (Arn i m e i n e n S t r u m p f f i n d e n (t'"))])])]) This means that a time t'" is a subinterval of the sez'Mnterval, and at this t'", Arnim finds one of his stockings. But the analysis runs into problems with quantifiers like oft ('often'), cf.: (2.3-26) Seit Mai bin ich oft ins Kino gegangen (Musan, 2000, p. 177) Xt ( 3 t [Xt' (C(t') & PRES (t)(t'))] [Xt' (3 a [Xt" (C(t") & PERF (t')(t"))] [Xt" (oftp [Xt'" (C(tm) & seit Mai (tm) & ge...t sei-(t")(t"'))] [Xt'" (ich_ins_Kino_gehen(t"'))])])]) The sentence means that in the seiY-interval, there are many occurrences of going to the movies. However, this meaning is not rendered by the formula. The formula says that there is a subinterval of the seiMnterval that contains many occurrences of going to the movies. It irritates me that the scope of the quantifiers and seit in the formulas are the other way round as in the surface structure of the sentences. There should be an explanation why we have this inversion.

68

2. Looking at previous analyses As for bis ('until'), the rule is analogous to the one for seit: (2.3-27) Ubisir = the function f: Di -> D such that for any t*e D„ f(t*)(t**)=l iff t** is a subinterval of the time interval that starts at the left or right boundary of a contextually provided time interval, and that ends either at the left boundary or at the right boundary oft*, and that is of unspecified length (Musan, 2000, p. 191)

Again, I don't understand the sense of 'unspecified length' here. The parallel to seit is the subinterval idea - bis is just vague with the extension of the interval it denotes. Thus, also the complex u/e-ambiguity associated with bis gets an analysis in terms of vagueness. My objection is again that the analysis is wrong for 6/s-sentences with quantifiers other than existential, e.g. it is wrong with quantifiers like oft ('often'). Notice that the relative scope of bis and 3p is fixed - 3p always has wide scope. But in natural language, we find that overt quantifiers may have narrow or wide scope, leading to meaning differences: (2.3-28) Mit dem Dancing Perron im ehemaligen »Höfli« in Au schuf die Höfli Gastro AG eine echte Alternative zu den bisherigen Tanzlokalen in der engeren Region. Von Dienstag bis Samstag, davon dreimal bis in den Morgen hinein (3 Uhr) bietet sich einem etwas gesetzteren Ausgehpublikum ab etwa 25 Jahren die Möglichkeit, auch geschlossen tanzen zu können. Das Inhaberehepaar Curiger (Sie betreiben gemeinsam eine Handelsfirma fur Kunststoffabfalle) setzt dabei auf ein äusserst gepflegtes Ambiente, eine umfangreiche Getränke- und Imbiskarte sowie dezente Discoklänge. [COSMAS, St. Galler Tagblatt, 30.8.1999] dreimal bis 3 Uhr bietet sich [...] die Möglichkeit... three-times until 3 clock offers itself the possibility 'three times until 3 o'clock there is the opportunity to ...' (2.3-29) Die Nacht war ebenso kalt wie die vorigen Nächte; ich wartete, bis mein Pferd sich legte, und lagerte mich dann so an seinen Leib, daß er mich erwärmte. Das Tier lag so ruhig, als wüßte es, welchen Dienst ich von ihm verlangte, und ich wachte bis zum Morgen nur einmal auf. (http://www.gutenberg2000.de/may/winnetl/winnetl6.htm) ich wachte bis zum Morgen nur einmal auf I woke-up until to-the morning only once up 'until morning, I woke up only once' If the quantifier has wide scope as in the first example, we get a u-reading. With opposite scope we get the e-reading. This means that Musan may be wrong to assign 3 P as the representative of overt quantifiers always wide scope. And it means even more: the vagueness-approach may be wrong in its generality as examples like the ones above show that what we need is the 6/s-interval as a whole. Bis cannot denote some subpart as either (with the first example) I take the whole ¿«-interval and say with the quantifier 'take three like them'. Or (with the second example) I take the whole ¿«-interval

2.3. Duratives and XN-Adverbs

69

and say with the quantifier 'take one time within it'. What I need in any case seems to be the full te-interval, not only some subinterval of it. (Stechow, 2002) discusses seit-da.ta and the complex u/e-ambiguity in detail. He assumes seit to be ambiguous: we have to introduce two further different meanings for seit a: the first one modifies an Extended Now introduced by the present perfect and imposes a restriction on the aktionsart selected1. The second variant of seit a introduces an Extended Now [...] and requires that the selected aktionsart be a state (Stechow, 2002, p. 394) I agree absolutely, I also assume two seits (the meaning rules will be different, though). This is an example of the first variant, the Extended-Now-modifier: (2.3-30) Seit Februar 1987 hatte er [der Yen, AvS] auf dem Nachkriegs-Rekordtief von 2,5 Prozent gestanden, obwohl es in den anderen wichtigen Industrieländern der westlichen Welt schon seit dem Sommer vergangenen Jahres mehrere Erhöhungen gegeben hatte (Stechow, 2002, p. 409f.) obwohl es [...] seit dem Sommer [...] mehrere Erhöhungen gegeben although it since the summer several raisings given hatte had 'although there had been several raisings since summer' The SEMANTIC TENSE (see section 2.1.3 above for Stechow's framework in general) in (2.3-30) is PAST, the SEMANTIC ASPECT is HAVEgerm. What seit does is simply specify the beginning of the Extended-Now introduced by HAVEgerm. This is the LF, perfectly alright (Stechow, 2002, p. 410): (2.3-31) 3t XN(t,PASTj) & LB (last summer,t) & 3 several t' c 11' is a raising And here is an example of the second variant, the Extended-Now-introducer: (2.3-32) Dieter ist seit 1975 in Düsseldorf (Stechow, 2002, p. 398) Dieter is since 1975 in Düsseldorf 'since 1975, Dieter has been living in Düsseldorf The SEMANTIC TENSE is PRESENT, the SEMANTIC ASPECT is IMPERFECTIVE. What seit does is introduce an Extended-Now. The LF is not given, but I assume it to be like the following: (2.3-33) 3t NOW c t & 3f XN(t',t) & LB (1975,t') & Dieter lives in Düsseldorf at t' The distribution of these two seits is the following according to (Stechow, 2002, p.407ff.): with the Preterite and the Present, the Extended-Now-introducer-setf is at work. It demands states and the e-reading of the complex u/e-ambiguity is not attested. With Perfect and Pluperfect, we observe the Extended-Now-modifier-se/i. This demands states or activities and the e-reading is attested. E-readings must be "licensed by a main verb haben/sein" (Stechow, 2002, p. 412), i.e., by the Perfect/ Pluperfect.

The Aktionsart must be state or activity, see p. 394 of the paper.

2. Looking at previous analyses

70

The problem I have with Stechow's approach concerns the distribution of these two seits and the predictions for the occurrences of the e-reading of the complex u/eambiguity. (Stechow, 2002, p. 411) says that e-readings with Preterite-sentences containing seit can only be instances of "Ersatzpräteritum" ((Latzel, 1977)), and he mentions some data illustrating this. But there are enough Preterite-data that do not involve "Ersatzpräteritum", cf. the following from my collection from the web (if you want to have a look at all collected data, go to section 3.3. in this thesis): ( 2 . 3 - 3 4 ) THIS IS AN E-READING!

Einer Umfrage zufolge zogen die Heizölpreise allgemein an. Diese Bewegung setzte allerdings teilweise schon vor dem OPEC-Beschluß ein, verstärkte sich aber seit Montag mit Preiserhöhungen um 4 bis 6 Pfennig je Liter. Diese Entwicklung wird aber überwiegend als "Strohfeuer" angesehen. [Mannheimer Morgen, 7.8.1986] Diese Bewegung [...] verstärkte sich aber seit Montag this movement strengthended itselfbut since Monday 'this movement has strengthened since Monday' ( 2 . 3 - 3 5 ) THIS IS AN E-READING!

Sieben Obdachlose erfroren in Bukarest bei Temperaturen bis zu minus 20 Grad. In Polen erfroren seit Montag mindestens 17 Menschen. In Deutschland meldete Braunlage (Harz) mit minus 15,2 Grad den Kälterekord. [Frankfurter Rundschau, 18.12.1997] In Polen erfroren seit Montag mindestens 17 Menschen in Poland froze-to-death since Monday at-least 17people. 'in Poland at least 17 people have frozen to death since Monday' The examples above have nothing to do with "Ersatzpräteritum". Thus, I cannot fully agree with Stechow in this issue. The complex u/e-ambiguity is indeed found with the Preterite. But I absolutely agree with (Stechow, 2002) when he says that e-readings with the Present do not occur. Data that at first sight seem to display e-readings turn out to be better described as stative in character (either habitual or progressive), i.e., as universal readings. One example from my corpus my illustrate the point: (2.3-36) Der Jungmanager steckt den Kopf nicht in den Sand und fuhrt seit Montag Gepräche mit Moderator Ulrich Meyer (unser Bild), der auch in Personalunion fur den Posten des Chefredakteurs und Anchorman in Frage kommt. [Mannheimer Morgen, 11.10.1994] Der Jungmanager [...] fuhrt seit Montag Gepräche the young-manager leads since Monday talks 'the young manager is leading discussions since Monday'

2.3. Duratives and XN-Adverbs

71

2.3.2 for and since (Reichenbach, 1947) says that adverbial modification is R-modification in English: When a time determination is added, such as is given by words like 'now' or 'yesterday', or by a nonreflexive symbol like 'November 7, 1944', it is referred, not to the event, but to the reference point of the sentence. [...] When we say, 'I had met him yesterday', what was yesterday is the reference point, and the meeting may have occurred the day before yesterday. We shall speak, therefore, of the positional use of the reference point; the reference point is used here as the carrier of the time position. Such usage, at least, is followed by the English language. (Reichenbach, 1947, p. 294) This is immediately convincing, especially with the given example. But it is unclear to me what Reichenbach actually regards as a "time determination". I suppose he means the class of positional adverbs, because what he mentions are positional adverbs. The generalization "adverbial modification = R-modification" cannot be true for duratives. This becomes clear (although Reichenbach himself makes no remark about this) when a "second usage" of the Perfect is discussed, cf. (Reichenbach, 1947, p. 292): Actual language does not always keep to the schemas given in our tables. [...] The English present perfect is often used in the sense of the corresponding extended tense [i.e. the ing-forms like I have been seeing John, MR], with the additional qualification that the duration of the event reaches up to the point of speech. Thus we have here the schema [...] YYYYYYYYYYYY—X—> E S,R In the sense of this schema we say, for instance, 'I have known him for ten years'. This is no normal case of adverbial modification because it is no R-modification: It is impossible that for ten years modifies R, because R is identical with S and S cannot be 10 years long. Obviously, for ten years modifies E, but Reichenbach doesn't say so. Instead, he links the semantics offor to that of the "extended tenses", presumably because in both cases, E has a certain duration. Reichenbach maybe thinks that Perfectsentences with this semantics are rare ("Actual language does not always keep to the schemas given in our tables"), but this isn't true: whenever you have duratives in a Perfect sentence, you have a semantics like that. (Dowty, 1979) comments on the simple u/e-ambiguity as it is displayed by the durative for. In addition, he talks about since. Let us start with for. Dowty begins with this meaning rule: (2.3-37) for (e P(iy/iv)/(t/i)) translates into XPtXPXx [Pt{n} & Atftcn P{x})]] (Dowty, 1979, p. 333)

AT(t,

72

2. Looking at previous analyses reads: 'For, which is an Aspectual Measure Preposition ((IV/IV)/(t/i)), translates into lambda P t (and P t is of type ), lambda P (and P is of type ), lambda x (type e) Pt{n} and for all t that are part ofn, P{x} is true at t'

Some technical remarks are in order here, cf. (Dowty, 1979, p. 350ff.), where the English fragment is described in detail. In this system, "V" is the existential quantifier and "A" is the universal one. The set of types is the smallest set T such that (a) e (entities), t (truth values) and i (intervals of time) are in T; (b) if a, b e T, then e T; (c) if a e T, then e T. The denotations are D e = E; D t = {1,0}; Dj = I; D< a = D< s a> = P t {n} is an abbreviation for [ v P t ](n). n is not Kamp's'nonshifting 'now' but an indexical constant. The type assignment f is as follows. f(t) = t (i.e., the logical type of a sentence [symbolized as t] is t); f(IV) = (i.e., the logical type of a intransitive verb phrase [symbolized as IV] is ); f(t/i) = (i.e., the logical type of a temporal measure phrase [symbolized as t/i] is ); for all categories A/B, f(A/B) = «s,f(B)>, f(A) >. Thus, the type of for must be: AT(t, sleep'(j))]] (I inserted [PRES(now') & AT (now', Vti[XN(ti) & Vt2[t2 c t , & an-hour' (t2) & At 3 [t 3 ct 2 AT(t3, sleep'(j))]]])], (I applied AT-elimination, cf. (Dowty, 1979, p. 334)

2. Looking at previous analyses

74 (2.3-43) diagram of (2.3-42)

now

o y ti This looks immediately OK for the e-reading of the simple u/e-ambiguous sentence John has slept for an hour now. (Dowty, 1979, p.343f.) says that he doesn't want to account for the u-reading in terms of underspecification. Underspecification would simply mean that the exact localization of the interval in the illustration is not fixed. If the interval abuts now, we get the u-reading. If the interval is separated from now, we get the e-reading. Dowty doesn't want this solution. Instead, he advocates lexical ambiguity: there are two different/or-adverbs. And, in addition to this: an additional Perfect-rule is needed, because the 'new' for is of another syntactic category. Cf. the following overview of the rules needed for the two readings: e-reading (what we saw above): (2.3-44)= (2.3-37) for1 (e P ( i v / i v ) / ( t / i ) ) t r a n s l a t e s i n t 0 ^ t ^ x [ p t ( n } & At[tcn AT(t, P{x})]J (Dowty, 1979, p. 333) (2.3-45) S41

F (a) = have a', where a ' is the result of changing the first verb in a to a past participle form. The interpretation is: XxVti[XN(ti) & Vt2[t2 c tj & AT (t2, a'( x ))]]

u-reading: (2.3-46) for2 (e B T m A V / ( t / i ) ) translates into APtA,QtVti[XN(ti) & P t {ti} & At 2 [[t 2 cti & XN(t2)] Q t {t 2 }]] (Dowty, 1979, p. 344) (2.3-47) S42, another rule for Perfect without adverb. F (a,P) = have P' a , where P' is the result of changing the first verb in P to a past participle form. The interpretation is: A,x[a'(At[XN(t) & AT (t, P'(x))])] (Dowty, 1979, p. 344) We already saw the e-reading, let us have a short look at the u-reading as well. The following tree is copied from (Dowty, 1979, p. 345):

2.3. Duratives

75

andXN-Adverbs

(2.3-48) tree for John has slept for an hour John has slept for an hour, t, 4

John, T

have slept for an hour, IV, 42 for an hour, TmAV

for, TmAV / (t /i) This gets the translation:

sleep, IV

an hour, t /i

(2.3-49) A,Q^Vti[XN(ti) & an-hour'(ti) & A f f e c t , & XN(t2)] Qt{t2}]], Qtte} [XN(t2) & AT (t2, sleep'(j))])] (n-elimination, AT-elemination) => Vti[XN(ti) & an-hour'(ti) & At 2 [[t 2 cti & XN(t2)] [XN(t2) & AT (t2, sleep'Cj))]]] (I inserted Q t {t 2 }) (2.3-50) diagram of (2.3-49) an-hour, t 2 cti

now

This indeed is the u-reading. But what makes Dowty propose such an ad hoc solution (notice not only the proliferation of rules but also the doubling of the XN in the final formula)? It is claimed that preposed/or-adverbs only show the u-reading: (2.3-51) For four years, John has lived in Boston According to (Dowty, 1979, p. 343) (and many other researchers, see below), this only shows the u-reading. Notice that the 'first' /or-adverb in (2.3-37) cannot be preposed as it is of the 'wrong' syntactic category, namely IV/IV. What we need for proposing has to be of category TmAV, like now. The ' second' ybr-adverb is of category TmAV/(t/i), if combined with the necessary measure phrase, we have the wanted category TmAV. Although very suggestive at first sight, I believe this claim is empirically inadequate. To my knowledge, (Abusch and Rooth, 1990) were the first to challenge this widespread claim. (Abusch and Rooth, 1990, p. 12) suggest that, i.e. in the context of a sleeping experiment, the following sentence may have both an e- and a u-reading: (2.3-52) For two hours, John has been asleep Abusch & Rooth's claim has, to my knowledge, found not much support in the literature. To check the claim, I examined some natural data from the web. The search, simply done with http://www.google.de, was for sentence-initial ybr-adverbs. And indeed, I found many nice examples of the Abusch-&-Rooth-kind proving that there is no correlation between preposing and u-reading. I found many examples of e-readings

76

2. Looking at previous analyses

with preposed /or-adverbs. Cf. the following, where the ybr-sentence in question is in italics. If you want to have a look at all the examples I found, go to section 3.3.4. Sentence-initial /or-adverbs with e-reading, contra (Dowty, 1979): (2.3-53) To say I am frustrated with the problem of school lunches is just not going to cut it. I am positively erupting ... and ash and lava are everywhere. My son started high school this year. I had heard someone say that this school had some healthy choices. NOT!!! For two weeks he has eaten tacos without cheese, chicken nuggets andfries. His other choices were popcorn shrimp and onion rings and sodas. This not only costs too much ($ 4)but is death food. A couple of years ago I called the man who oversees the buying and planning of all the school lunches. He claims that fast food is what kids get at home, and if kids are going to buy the school lunches, he needs to supply them with food they know and will buy. He claims that if he served them healthier food that the food service couldn't sustain itself because not enough kids would buy lunch. I suggested he might offer baked potatoes, rice, choices without cheese, and grilled meats and vegetables. And for about a month I saw changes on the menu. Then, back to the worst.2 (http://www.healthyawareness.eom/_Archives/_cdiscl/0000022b.htm) Finally, let us have a look at Dowty's claims about since. (Dowty, 1979, p. 348) notices the existence of the complex u/e-ambiguity with since, but he says he has no solution. Dowty only has a proposal for the u-reading. (2.3-54) since (e B T m A V / T m ) translates into XPtXPt/>t{Ati[At2[[ti < t2 & XN(t2)] ->Ptte}]]} (Dowty, 1979, p. 344) (2.3-55) tree for John has slept since midnight John has slept since midnight, t, 4

John, T

have slept since midnight, IV, 42 since midnight, TmAV

sleep, IV

since, TmAV / Tm midnight, Tm This tree, copied from (Dowty, 1979, p. 345), gets the translation: (2.3-56) At2[[midnight' < t2 & XN(t2)] [XN(t2) & AT(t2, sleep'Q»]] This indeed is the u-reading of the complex u/e-ambiguity in the case of since. The two weeks of unhealthy food cannot abut speech time because after these weeks the mother contacted "the man who oversees the buying and planning of all the school lunches". And even after this, "for about a month I saw changes on the menu. Then, back to the worst" (these are the last two sentences).

2.3. Duratives andXN-Adverbs

11

(Richards, 1982) analyzes the duratives for and since. As for since, Richards doesn't recognize the complex u/e-ambiguity arising with this adverb. He proposes the following rule: (2.3-57) F(SINCE 7)(w,i)(||A||M (w,i)) =1 (where A is a tenseless sentence) iff beg(i)=7 & Vj [j c i -> ||A|n (w,j)=l]. (Richards, 1982, p. 97) Let us do an example-derivation: (2.3-58) Sam has been in Boston since 7 Pres ( w ,i) [SINCE 7 [ HAVE (Sam be in Boston)]] || PreS(W,i) [SINCE 7 [HAVE (Sam be in Boston)]] ||M (w',i') = 1 iff F(PreS(W,i))(w',i'X|| SINCE 7 [HAVE (Sam be in Boston)] ||M (w',i')) =liff w'=w & i'=i & beg(i')=7 & Vj [j c i' -> ||HAVE (Sam be in Boston)||M (w'j)=l] iff w'=w & i —i & beg(i')=7 & Vj []' c i' 3k [k c j & ||Sam be in Boston||M (w',k)=l] The problem, again (cf. the previous section in 1.1.2.2. on Richards above), I have with this is the expansion of the speech time. And, again, it is not clear that Sam's stay in Boston ends at the 'real' point of speech. Another problem arises from the since-rule. Universal quantification is too strong as since also combines with other Aktionsarts than states. Finally, notice that the opposite scope of since and HAVE leads to the same (universal) reading: (2.3-59) Sam has been in Boston since 7 PreS( W ,i) [HAVE[ SINCE 7 (Sam be in Boston)]] || PreS(Wjj) [HAVE [SINCE 7 (Sam be in Boston)]] ||M (w',i') = 1 iff FiPres^Xw'J'XH HAVE [SINCE 7 (Sam be in Boston)] ||M (w',i')) =liff w'=w & i'=i & 3j [j c i' & 11SINCE 7 (Sam be in Boston)||M (w'j)=l] iff w'=w & i'=i & 3j [j c i' & & beg(j)=7 & Vk [k c j -> ||Sam be in Boston||M (w',k)=l] As (Richards, 1982, p. 101) allows a "yesterday" to be included in an "expanded now", he must also allow a "7" to be included in there. Thus, the bracketing should be OK. But (Richards, 1982, p. 97) wants to exclude it via some meaning postulate because since is not felicitous with the Present. But this is not worked out, and the ereading of since is not there, anyway. As for for, Richards acknowledges the simple u/e-ambiguity arising with this adverb. He proposes the following rule for for. (2.3-60) F(FOR 20 minutes)(w,i)(||A||M (w,i)) =1 (where A is a tenseless sentence) iff dur (i)= 20 minutes & Vj [j c i ||A|r (w,j)=l], (Richards, 1982, p. 97) To account for the ambiguity, Richards suggests a solution in terms of scope, cf.: (2.3-61) Sam has been in Boston for 20 min - existential reading: || Pres (w,i) [HAVE (for 20 minutes(Sam be in Boston))] ||M (w',i') = 1 iff F(Pres)(w',i')(w,i)(||HAVE(for 20 minutes(Sam be in Boston)) ||M (w',i')) = 1 iff

78

2. Looking at previous analyses

w'=w & i'=i & || HAVE (for 20 minutes(Sam be in Boston)) ||M (w',i') = 1 iff w'=w & i'=i & 3j [j c i' & || for 20 minutes(Sam be in Boston) ||M (w'j) = 1] iff w - w & i - i & 3j [j c i' & dur (j)= 20 minutes & Vk[k c j —> Sam is in Boston at (w',k)]] (2.3-62) Sam has been in Boston for 20 min - universal reading: || Pres (w,i) [for 20 minutes (HAVE (Sam be in Boston))] ||M (w',0 = 1 iff F(Pres)(w',i')(w,i)(|| for 20 minutes (HAVE (Sam be in Boston)) f (w',i')) = 1 iff w*=w & i'=i & || for 20 minutes (HAVE (Sam be in Boston)) ||M (w',i') = 1 iff w —w & i'=i & dur (i')= 20 minutes & Vj[j c i' || HAVE (Sam be in Boston) ||M (w',j) = 1] iff w'=w & i'=i & dur (i')= 20 minutes & Vj[j c i' -> 3k [k c j & Sam is in Boston at (w',k)]] As for the e-reading, notice that the now must include the 20-minutes-interval of Sam's stay in Boston (one would expect some 20 minutes BEFORE speech time). To see this as an e-reading, one must accept that the 'real' now is some subpart of the big red "expanded" now, otherwise we have a u-reading. - As for the u-reading, the speech time is simply 20 minutes long and in these 20 minutes, the VP takes place. (Heny, 1982) analyzes the duratives for and since. As for since, (Heny, 1982, p. 146f.) recognizes the complex u/e-ambiguity arising with this adverb: (83) (a) For Sam to have been in Boston since 7.00... (b) Sam has been in Boston since 7.00 [...] Example (83b) can be true if Sam has been in Boston continuously since 7.00 - or if he has been there just once in the interval between 7.00 and the time of evaluation. Heny then proposes the following rule for since (identical to Richard's rule in (2.3-57)): (2.3-63) F(SINCE 7)(w,i)(||A||M (w,i}) =1 (where A is a tenseless sentence) iff beg(i)=7 & Vj [j c i ||A|| ( w j ) = l ] , (Heny, 1982, p. 147) In addition, (Heny, 1982, p. 147) demands that his aspectual rule for HAVE is used (remember from section 1.1.2.3. that he has two rules for HAVE). Let now us do the derivation of the mentioned sentence: (2.3-64) Sam has been in Boston since 7 Pres(W)i) [SINCE 7 [ HAVE (Sam be in Boston)]] || PreS(Wij) [SINCE 7 [HAVE (Sam be in Boston)]] ||M (w',i') = 1 iff F(PreS(W;i))(w',i')(|| SINCE 7 [HAVE (Sam be in Boston)] ||M (w*,i')) =1 iff w'=w & V=i & beg(i')=7 & Vj [j c i' ||HAVE (Sam be in Boston)|| M (w'j)=l] iff

2.3. Duratives andXN-Adverbs

79

w'=w & i - i & beg(i')=7 & Vj [j c i' 3k [k c j & k is a nonfinal subinterval of j & ||Sam be in Boston||M (w',k)=l]] The problem, again (cf. the previous section in 1.1.2.3. on Heny above), I have with this is the expansion of the speech time. And, again, it is not clear that Sam's stay in Boston ends at the 'real' point of speech. Another problem arises from the since-rule. Universal quantification is too strong as since also combines with other Aktionsarts than states. Above all, I cannot see that there is an e-reading. But Heny says that e-readings are there, are represented by the formula in (2.3-64): Example (83b) can be true if Sam has been in Boston continuously since 7.00 - or if he has been there just once in the interval between 7.00 and the time of evaluation. Although we might once again try to use scope to differentiate these 'readings', the situation seems quite analogous to that which we came across with the durational For 20 minutes, and we believe that we are dealing once again simply with a special case of a more general quantificational phenomenon: there must be at least one subinterval at which the embedded proposition is true, in the interval between 7.00 and the time of utterance, and at the limit this can extend throughout that period. The limiting case is experienced for what it is: as a special case. (Heny, 1982, p. 147) What Heny regards as a "special case" is the normal one, namely the u-reading. It seems as if Heny wants an analysis in terms of a vague since, like (Musan, 2000, p. 189) wants it for seit and bis. I already commented on the (impossibility of a vague bis in the Musan-section above. Similar arguments against vagueness can be made in the case of since. If we have an e-reading with an overt quantifier in the scope of since, we have to start with the whole i/wce-interval in order to be able to 'cut out' some part of it: (2.3-65) From covering school board meetings I have expanded to be the unofficial history and agriculture correspondent. I have been on the cover four times since May (twice this month, Dec.) and had the cover of the 'Friday' magazine three times since Sept. (http://www.momwriters.com/aboutmw/bios/bioK.html) The vagueness-approach may be wrong in its generality as examples like the one above show that what we need is the since-interval as a whole. Since cannot denote some subpart as either (with u-readings) I take the whole s/'wce-interval, or (with ereadings like in the example above) I take the whole smce-interval and say with the quantifier 'take x times within it'. What I need in any case seems to be the full sinceinterval, not only some subinterval of it. Via a syntactic postulate, Heny wants to rule out the opposite scope of HAVE and since in (2.3-64). This would ensure that since only combines with Perfects. As for for, Heny acknowledges the simple u/e-ambiguity arising with this adverb. He wants an analysis in terms of underspecification. In his view, the u-reading is just a limiting case of the e-reading. He proposes the following rule forfor (identical to Richard's rule in (2.3-60)):

80

2. Looking at previous analyses (2.3-66) F(FOR 20 minutes)(w,i)(||A||M (w,i)) =1 (where A is a tenseless sentence) iff dur (i)= 20 minutes & Vj [j c i ||A||M (wj)=l], (Heny, 1982, p. 143)

The calculation is as follows (with aspectual HAVE again), cf.: (2.3-67) Sam has been in Boston for 20 min || Pres (w,i) [HAVE (for 20 minutes(Sam be in Boston))] ||M (w',i') = 1 iff F(Pres)(w',i')(w,i)(| |HAVE(for 20 minutes(Sam be in Boston)) ||M (w',i')) = 1 iff w'=w & i —i & || HAVE (for 20 minutes(Sam be in Boston)) ||M (w',i') = 1 iff w'=w & i - i & 3j [j c i' & i is anonfinal subinterval of i' & || for 20 minutes (Sam be in Boston) (w',j) = 1] iff w - w & i'=i & 3j [j c i' & j is a nonfinal subinterval of i' & dur (j)= 20 minutes & Vk[k c j —> Sam is in Boston at (w',k)]] Although I also believe that underspecification is the way to go, I don't fully agree to this analysis. The now must include the 20-minutes-interval of Sam's stay in Boston (one would expect some 20 minutes BEFORE speech time). (Mittwoch, 1988) analyzes the duratives for and since and comments on both the simple and the complex u/e-ambiguity. To explain the complex u/e-ambiguity arising with since, Mittwoch proposes a lexical ambiguity of both since and the Perfect. These are her proposals: (2.3-68) SINCEU Tuesday (Have u (A)) is true in M relative to (w,i) iff i is the final moment of an interval j and there is an interval k such that k is a final subinterval of Tuesday and the initial proper subinterval of j and A is true in M relative to (wj), where A is interpreted as a state (2.3-69) SINCE e Tuesday (HaveE (A)) is true in M relative to (w,i) iff i is the final moment of an interval j and Tuesday is the initial lower boundary interval of j, and for some subinterval k of j A is true in M relative to (w,k) Some things have to be explained here. First, an underlying hypothesis is that since has really two meanings: sinceu is inclusive, while sinceE is exclusive. Cf. (Mittwoch, 1988, p. 207): The way out of the impasse is to recognize that since itself is ambiguous. Since 7.00 can mean from 7.00 till now or at some time between 7.00 and now. [...] The first sense corresponds to a universal quantifier, the second to an existential one. Note furthermore that in the existential reading of (11) Sam has been in Boston since Tuesday. Tuesday is excluded from the range of possible intervals of Sam's being in Boston that are covered by the sentence. [...] In the universal reading of (11) Tuesday, or at least part of it, is included. This sounds conclusive, but empirically, the claim is wrong. Data I gathered from the web tell that instead 'inclusiveness' is the way to go for both readings. To put it in other words: we easily find sentences with e-readings like Sam has been in Boston

81

2.3. Duratives andXN-Adverbs

since Tuesday, where the event occurs within, not after Tuesday. Cf. the following, where the s/wce-sentence in question is in italics. If you want to have a look at all the examples I found, go to section 3.3.2. (2.3-70) The deadly highway shoot-out was just one of many troubling signs that alQaeda has found a new home — in Pakistan. While the U.S. and coalition forces continue to squeeze al-Qaeda inside Afghanistan, thousands of militants have slipped across the border since last winter. [...] For months U.S. and Afghan officials have speculated that bin Laden has sought refuge over the border, though Pakistani intelligence officials tell Time that the Qaeda boss was last definitely seen on Nov. 17 in a 25-vehicle convoy, heading from Jalalabad into Afghanistan's Tora Bora mountains. Since then, the Pakistanis say, there have been no credible sightings. But thousands of alQaeda fighters did cross into Pakistan in two waves. According to Pakistani intelligence officials, the first exodus came in November, when alQaeda fled into the remote Tirah Valley to escape the U.S. bombardment of Tora Bora. The second wave entered last March, during the allied forces' Operation Anaconda against al-Qaeda positions in Afghanistan's eastern Shah-i-Kot mountains. (http://www.timecanada.com/story.adp?storyid=396&type=daily) Let's get back to Mittwoch's analysis. Another important thing about the rules in (2.3-68)-(2.3-69) is the syncategorematic treatment of the Perfect and the durative. Note that in both rules, the meanings of the Perfect and the durative are given together, i.e., there is no independent meaning rule for either the Perfect or for the durative. Note especially that you cannot use the rule for the existential Perfect given earlier. This makes Mittwoch's theory somewhat weak. However, let's have a look now at what the rules in (2.3-68)-(2.3-69) do actually. Cf. the following illustration: (2.3-71) John has been ill since Tuesday (u-reading, rule (2.3-68) applies) Tuesday

" y j This looks OK. The sentence means the following: John's illness started somewhere in a past Tuesday and lasts until now. The illustration shows the same: the time of the illness starts in a Tuesday and ends at the point of speech time. The interval k serves as reference time here. Now let us test the rule for the e-reading:

The flight of the militants started in winter, as at least "the first exodus came in November".

82

2. Looking at previous analyses (2.3-72) John has been to Paris since Tuesday (e-reading, rule (2.3-69) applies) Tuesday

Vs

y

o ^

j This also looks OK. The sentence means the following: John's trip to Paris is somewhere between (as Mittwoch claims, see above) the end of a past Tuesday and now. The illustration shows the same: the time of the trip is located in an interval starting after a past Tuesday and ending at the point of speech time. The interval j serves as reference time here. To explain the simple u/e-ambiguity arising with for, Mittwoch proposes a scope ambiguity involving the Perfect and for, again together with a syncategorematic analysis of the Perfect. These are her proposals: (2.3-73) FOR 20 MINUTES (Have u (A)) is true in M relative to (w,i) iff i is the final moment of an interval j such that j is of 20 minutes' duration and A is true in M relative to (w,j), where A is interpreted as a state (2.3-74) HaveE (FOR 20 MINUTES (A)) is true in M relative to (w,i) iff i is the final moment of an interval j and there is a subinterval k of j such that k is of 20 minutes' duration and A is true in M relative to (w,k) In (2.3-74) you can use the rule for the existential Perfect given earlier, insofar the analysis of the e-reading of the simple u/e-ambiguity is compositional. But there is, again, no separate rule for the universal Perfect, (2.3-73) is a syncategorematic treatment of the u-reading of the simple u/e-ambiguity. Mittwoch claims that the overall analysis of the simple u/e-ambiguity makes use of scope ambiguity. I'm not sure if 'scope ambiguity' is the right word here because we have a syncategorematic analysis where there is actually no scope at all between for and Have, as both of them are interpreted together, with the internal structure left unclear. But let's see how the rules work: (2.3-75) John has been away for 20 minutes (u-reading, rule (2.3-73) applies)

v

_ • y j, 20 minutes long

o s

83

2.3. Duratives and XN-Adverbs

This looks OK. The sentence means the following: John's absence is now 20 minutes long. The illustration shows the same: the time of the absence is 20 minutes long and ends at the point of speech time. Now let us test the rule for the e-reading: (2.3-76) John has been away for 20 minutes (e-reading, rule (2.3-74) applies) k, 20 minutes long

V

_

i

_

j This also looks OK. The sentence means the following: John's 20-minutes-absence is somewhere before now. The illustration shows the same: the time of the 20-minutesabsence is before the point of speech time. The interval j serves as reference time here. (Abusch and Rooth, 1990) comment on the simple u/e-ambiguity as it is displayed by the durative for. In a sentence like (2.3-77), one would at first glance say that the running happens at all subintervals of the two hours: (2.3-77) John ran for two hours Literally, this is wrong - the running only happens at all big enough subintervals of the two hours. These subintervals must be true running-intervals. (Abusch and Rooth, 1990, p. 4) adapt (Hinrichs, 1985) to express this: John run for two hours is true at the eventuality ei iff: there is an interval t2 such that (i)t2 is of duration two hours, (ii) t2 is a temporal subpart of ei, (in) John run is true at ei (iv) for every subinterval i of t2, there is an eventuality e3 such that: (a) i is a temporal subpart of e3 (b) e3 is a proper subeventuality of ei (c) John run is true at e3

t2 The last clause is important: you only regard those e3-events which are true runningevents. If this is what the authors mean, there would also be a simpler way to express it:

2. Looking at previous analyses

84

(2.3-78) ||for two hours||(p)(t) = 1 iff 111 =2 hours & Vm c 13n [m c n c t & p(n) = 1]; with n being a minimal run-event (two steps, done faster than a walk) Example configuration:

«2 hours

Yt

J

Now let us see how the authors analyze the simple u/e-ambiguity as displayed in the following sentence: (2.3-79) John has been in Boston for two weeks (2.3-80) tree for the e-reading of (2.3-79) XP 0

has(5)

John been in Boston f° r

two weeks

This tree is translated into: (2.3-81) xnow(t5,u) & 3el[el c t5 & 3t2[two weeks(t2) & t2 c el & AT (el, in(j,b)) & Vi[i c t2 3e3 [e3 c el & i c e3 & AT (e3, in(j,b))]]]] It would be elegant to have a scope solution to the simple u/e-ambiguity. And indeed, the authors try to derive the u-reading by assigning wide scope to for, cf.: (2.3-82) preliminary tree for the u-reading of (2.3-79) XP 7

has(5)

two weeks John been in Boston (Abusch and Rooth, 1990, p. 6) translate this tree into (2.3-83) Vi[i £ t2 inO,b))]]]

3e 0 [e0 writing- n t x s e s' mt simplifications t=n p. 511, p. 62 Mary (x) sOt e = beg (s') e z)C s dur (s') = mt for three years (mt)

-i

e' e' CR. n t x s s' e ntxs t=n HAVE. t=n Mary (x) Mary (x) p. 589 sOt sOt S(s) e = end (s') e DCS Sis')

VP'(S) [TENSE=pres; STAT=+]

X

vp

00[PERF=+]

i

VP'(s') [TENSE=pres; STAT=+] VP S

( ')[STAT=+]

HAfg has

vp s

( )[STAT=+] lived

lived

CR.VP.PP, p. 591, writingsimplifications p. 511, p. 62

in Amsterdam

in Amsterdam

for 3 years

for 3 years

ntxss'emt t=n Mary (x) sOt e = end (s') ezxrs for three years (mt) dur(s')=mt s': x live in Amsterdam

In fact, this is the e-reading. There is only one (technical) problem: notice that the CR.VP.PP is faulty: the referent mt is not introduced in Uk, and as a condition we get for three years (mt) instead of the wanted three years (mt) because the PP also contains for. This could be repaired by making CR.VP.PP (like CR.HAVE.Adv above) a little more explicit, by splitting up the PP into P plus NP, and the new condition should then be ATYmij.HAVE.Adv. Taking the two analyses together, I'm unsure about the state s. Statives like live have no result, so how should s be characterized in general? What puzzles me even more is that s sometimes (e-reading) follows and sometimes (u-reading) goes along with s'. Kamp & Reyle's proposal for the simple u/e-ambiguity is a scope solution insofar as the adverbial is in different positions (and by this, different CRs are triggered). But the analysis seems a little artificial to me, because one could put the adverbial nearly anywhere and then write what you need into the conditions. Let us now go on with since. The authors' theory is a bit sketchy here as no DRSconstruction-rules are given. But there are two example-analyses, which illustrate the opinions of the authors quite well. Kamp & Reyle are not aware of the complex u/eambiguity associated with since, cf. (Kamp and Reyle, 1993, p. 628f.):

92

2. Looking at previous analyses

(5.209)(i) Mary has lived in Amsterdam since 1975. [...] Consider (5.209.i): this sentence is true if and only if the state s' of Mary living in Amsterdam holds at all times from (some time in) 1975 until (and including) the time of utterance. But they notice that if since NP is used in combinations with accomplishments and achievements, there is an e-reading. However, the size of the interval denoted by since NP is claimed to vary with Aktionsart: in the case of states, you can see from the quote above that the interval is claimed to include NP (i.e., Mary starts to live in Amsterdam in 1975). In the case of accomplishments/ achievements, the interval is claimed to exclude NP, cf. (Kamp and Reyle, 1993, p. 630f.): (5.214)(i) Since last summer Mary has moved to Paris. [...] The result states described in (5.214) all require that the events of which they are the results took place after the times indicated by the since-phrases. For instance, the result state described in (5.214.i) holds in virtue of (i) the occurrence of a past event to the effect that Mary moved to Paris, and (ii) the fact that this event occurred after last summer - if Mary moved to Paris before that time, (5.214.i) is false. The DRS which is the analysis of the sentence, however, does not render the wanted 'exclusive' reading, cf. (Kamp and Reyle, 1993, p. 633). I believe that 'exclusiveness' should not be written into the DRS at all because it is empirically not warranted. Cf. my comment on Mittwoch above. Empirically, e-readings allow inclusive readings of the durative. Of course, exclusive readings also occur. But this is because the position of the event is in principle not fixed with the e-reading. Kamp & Reyle claim that states only display the u-reading. This is an exampleanalysis from (Kamp and Reyle, 1993, p. 632): (2.3-92) Mary will have lived in Amsterdam since 1975 n t s s' e t't" x y n , < i , t » This is a quasi-German semantics, as the only difference concerns the abut-relation - for German, we have "zc", and for English we have "DC". I would like to carry on now with a "bare" Perfect-sentence to demonstrate the syntax: (3.1 -108) John has sneezed (3.1-109) tree for (3.1-108)

Pi

John sneezed I left out the AspP here (it would be directly below the PerfP). I did so because I am not concerned with the Progressive.

136

3. Presenting my own proposals

This is the translation and the illustration: (3.1-110) 3te Dj [t=s* & 3 f e D, [t'zet& 3t"e D, [t"cf& VP is true at t"]]] (3.1-111) diagram of (3.1-110) t " ç f , John's sneezing

t=s*

t'uxzt

A difference between English and German concerns the Future II. While you can convey a Future II-meaning in German by simply combining a morphological Perfect with a future-oriented adverb, this is not possible in English. Something like (3.1-112) * John has sneezed tomorrow cannot be reinterpreted in English to the following grammatical sentence with a Future II-semantics: (3.1-113) John will have sneezed tomorrow I don't want to go into the mechanisms of reinterpretation here. I don't know why German speakers may reinterpret and English speakers may not. But the best-known difference between the English and German doesn't concern these Future II-issues. It is known as the 'Present Perfect Puzzle', a coinage of (Klein, 1992): In Chris has left York, it is clear that the event in question, Chris's leaving York, has occurred in the past, for example yesterday at ten. Why is it impossible, then, to make this event time more explicit by such an adverbial, as in *Yesterday at ten, Chris has left York? It is a peculiarity of English that the Perfect is incompatible with some (not all, though) adverbs denoting the past. According to (McCoard, 1978, p. 134ff.), (Koziol, 1958) was the first to make a systematic overview about past-denoting adverbs. Some of these adverbs are compatible only with the Preterite, some only with the Perfect, and a third group goes with both tenses. (McCoard, 1978, p. 135) developed the overview further, arriving at this table:

3.1. My proposals for the Perfect

137

Occur with the Preterite but Occur with both the Preter- Occur with the Perfect but not with the Perfect: ite and the Perfect: not with the Preterite: long ago at present long since up till now five years ago in the past so far once (= formerly) once (= one time) yesterday as yet today the other day in my life not yet those days for three years during these five years past last night recently herewith in 1900 just now lately at 3:00 often since the war after the war always before now no longer never already before While *Yesterday at ten, Chris has left York is impossible, Recently, Chris has left York is fine - although both yesterday and recently denote a time in the past. The table above calls for an explanation. I want to suggest a solution in terms of features. I assume two binary features for adverbs, namely [+/- past] and [+/- definite], "Past" has the value "+" iff the adverb in question refers to some time prior to S; it has the value "-" otherwise. "Definite" has the value "+" iff the adverb in question refers to some definite position relative to S on the time axis; it has the value "-" otherwise. The adverbs in the first column mostly have the features [+past, +definite]. This is very clear in cases like yesterday or in 1900. Both locate an interval before S (this makes them [+past]). And both refer to a definite time (this makes them [+definite]) it is the day before the day containing the speech time in yesterday, it is the year 1900 in in 1900. If the features of the adverb are [+past, +definite], only the Preterite is possible via some syntactic feature-checking mechanism. The adverbs in the third column mostly have the features [-past, -definite], cf. at present or up till now. Both locate an interval overlapping with S (this makes them [-past]). And both refer to an indefinite time (this makes them [-definite]) - it is unclear how big the extension of at present or up till now is. If the features of the adverb are [-past, -definite], only the Perfect is possible via some syntactic feature-checking mechanism. And if the features are mixed, both Perfect and Preterite are possible. This is the column in the middle. Thus, the Perfect may be combined with adverbs denoting the past (having the feature [+past]), but these past-denoting adverbs must be indefinite (they must bear the feature [-definite]). Here are some examples. The relevant sentences are underlined: (3.1-114) As a Home Stay Family, you will have a pair of Japanese students stay with you for an extended weekend to share life in a typical American household. Group activities are part of the fun. In past years they have in-

138

3. Presenting my own proposals eluded a Yankee's baseball game, dinner at Medieval Times, boat rides to the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, shopping in Manhattan, swimming at Crestwood Lake, a tour of Allendale (including Police, Fire and Ambulance departments, Brookside School) and the Planetarium at NHRHS. The Japanese students will arrive at the end of July or the beginning of August. They will stay with us for five nights. In the past, they have arrived on a Thursday and have left on a Tuesday. The students vary in age from 12 to 16. (http://www.allendale2000.com/misc)

(3.1-115) Kirillos Veniadis was born in Greece in 1936. Having won the 1 st place in entrance examinations, he was awarded a state scholarship and graduated the Athens "School of Fine Arts" (Studio of Giannis Moralis 19571961) with honors and prizes. In 1961 he was appointed Professor of Art in the Discipline of Painting at (Doxiadis Athens Technological institute), a position he held until he left Greece in 1972. From 1959 to 1972 Veniadis was working with and under the guidance of the renowned Artist and teacher Spiros Vassiliou. Kyrillos Veniadis has died on a rainy Saturday (http://chios_art.tripod.com/veniadis/bio_eng.htm) In the two examples above, it is pretty clear that we refer to past events, i.e., that "on a Thursday" and "on a Tuesday" in (3.1-114) and "on a rainy Saturday" in (3.1-115) carry the feature [+past]. But they are indefinite, as the exact location of these days in the past is not given. Thus, "on a Thursday", "on a Tuesday" and "on a rainy Saturday" carry also the feature [-definite]. And this allows the Perfect (although the Preterite would also be possible). Or consider the following examples involving until. In the examples below, the wwi/7-phrase carries always the feature-combination [+past, -definite], which licenses the Perfect (but is also compatible with the Preterite, of course): (3.1-116) More times than I care to admit - often when I have been rushed and preoccupied - 1 have read a poem (or a passage of scripture, for that matter) and gotten nothing from it; no illuminating spark rose up from the page and ignited my mental kindling. I was not able to discern its meaning, let alone be touched by its beauty. Yet on another day, perhaps in the quiet of early morning with a cup of black coffee at hand, I have read the same poem or scripture and been startled by its translucent depth. I have read the poems in this anthology both ways. When, on a first reading, I have missed a poem's meaning, I have waited until another day and reread it. Good poetry not only takes time to write - it takes time to read. Place of Passage should be read slowly and repeatedly. It is worth the effort. (http://www.nimblespirit.com/html/place_of_passage_review.htm) (3.1-117) As Christians, we recognize that we live a new life. It may not be fully manifest in us, but it is there. Our lives are being changed day by day. This also means that there is a time before hand for many of us when we lived without Jesus. I was not introduced to Jesus Christ until I was sev-

3.1. My proposals for the Perfect

139

enteen. Until that time I have lived by the rules of my parents. I had been a pretty good kid. (http://www.cfdevotionals.org/devpages/de970206.htm) (3.1-118) I was introduced to the Class. Afterwards, some announcements were made, a couple of songs and then a collection was taken. Mr. Murrary, begin his introductory remarks about the Methodist Beliefs and commented on John Wesley, the creative spirit behind early Methodism. Until that time I have never heard of Methodism, and if I had, it had been a fleeting brush with the name only. (http://www.hawkwalk.com/macrobio2.html) (3.1-119) I returned to the Hunter squadron as 'A' Flight Commander and Instructor for my last six months in the Air Force. It was during this period that we acquired five more Hunters from Kenya, including our first two seater. I helped ferry them down to Zimbabwe and became our first 'real' instructor on the Hunter. [...] Until then I have loaned my Hunter to 'Australia's Museum of Flight', Nowra, New South Wales. They have assembled it, and is on display on the floor of their fine establishment. (http://www.hunty.com.au/Reborn/reborn.html) (3.1-120) Thank you so much for your support and kind words. After reading your response to my plea, I left my job and decided to conserve my energy, lessen my stress level and hopefully bring up my law school grades [...]. Until that time, I have appliedfor DAS public assistance. Do you have any ideas who can help me through the morass of laws and legislation regarding people with AIDS, education, welfare, etc. Also, I am in dire need of funds to continue my education and I don't know where to turn. (http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/Fatigue/Archive/Help/Q2411 .html) (3.1-121) He replied, "I can lock this item away, never to be seen by anyone and also stare at the hole in my checking account for what this item cost. Or I can place it on display and let others appreciate it." This gave me an idea. Until that time, I have seen many websites devoted to the collection of SciFiprops. Many of them I liked. I liked not only how they presented their collection on the web, but sometimes providing "background" information as well, (http://home.attbi.com/~propguy4/index2.htm) Thus, my considerations about the Present Perfect Puzzle go along the lines of (Klein, 1992): If the Perfect is used for an event in the past, only p-indefinite expressions may be used. The difference to Klein is that I don't ascribe some definiteness to the Perfect itself, so that there are clashes in p-definiteness. This is important in the treatment of adverbs like since, the behavior of which should be a problem for Klein as far as I can see. Since, if combined with the Perfect (and this is grammatical) should be predicted as ungrammatical as 'since NP' makes TSit p-definite, and the Perfect does the same for TT. This is the forbidden case in (Klein, 1992).

140

3. Presenting my own proposals

However, I don't want to go too deeply into the mysteries of the Present Perfect Puzzle. The feature-proposal sketched above looks convincing, but some adverbs, still, are very difficult. For instance, I am unsure about the features for recently and lately, these mean the same. They should be [-definite] as they are vague, and [+past] as we use them in past contexts. Thus, I would predict that recently and lately are possible with both Preterite and Perfect. However, while recently indeed allows both Preterite and Perfect, lately doesn't. Thus, while I believe that the features [+/- past] and [+/- definite] are important, some matters seem to be stated in the lexicon (lately could state in its lexical entry that it disallows the Preterite).

3.2 My proposals for Duratives and XN-Adverbs

3.2.1 Duratives and the complex u/e-ambiguity One of the universal/ existential ambiguities associated with durative adverbs I call "complex universal/ existential-ambiguity". It is associated with bis 'until', seit 'since', until, and since. John has been in Boston since Tuesday is ambiguous between him being there all the time (universal reading) and him being there at least once (existential reading). So far, the literature has only acknowledged this ambiguity for since and (marginally) for seit 'since', and only in combination with the Perfect. I will show with authentic data that this ambiguity exists with all durative adverbs and with all tenses. I will analyze it as a scope ambiguity of the durative adverb and a quantificational or frequency adverb. This adverb may be overt or covert. If it is covert, I symbolize it with "3 = ", this means something like 'at least once'. If the durative adverb has scope over the frequency adverb, the existential reading emerges (the translation is then something like: there is some durative-interval within the Extended-Now-interval, and within this durative-interval, the VP happens at least once). And if the frequency adverb has scope over the durative adverb, the universal reading emerges (the translation is then something like: there is some interval within the Extended-Now-interval, and at this durative-interval, the VP happens). The traditional analyses of the complex universal/ existential-ambiguity are different from mine in essence. Some traditional analyses are completely syncategorematic, others assume that at least the durative adverb since is lexically ambiguous. While I want to reject syncategorematic analyses in principle because they are inelegant from a theoretical point of view, I would like to comment on the approaches that assume lexical ambiguity. The claim about lexical ambiguity came up because the general impression was that with existential readings, the event could not be located in the time denoted by the argument of since. That is, with the existential reading of John has been in Boston since Tuesday, John could not have been in Boston on Tuesday proper. Thus, the existential reading of the sentence seems to be closely connected to an 'exclusive' reading of since. This would be in sharp contrast to the universal reading of the same sentence, where John's being in Boston would include the whole Tuesday. Thus, the universal reading of the sentence would be connected to an 'inclusive' reading of since. Again, this is the point where my databased research shows its advantages: I will list data that show existential sentences with 'inclusive' readings of since. Thus, 'inclusiveness' is the way to go for both the universal and the existential readings of the sentence. The assumed lexical ambiguity of since that we find in many approaches is empirically not warranted. This analysis of the complex u/e-ambiguity is completely new and hasn't been proposed before by anyone, as far as I know.

3. Presenting my own proposals

142

BIS My claim is that the durative adverb bis ('until') is associated with the complex u/eambiguity in all tenses. This adverb shows that the complex u/e-ambiguity in German is not limited to the Perfect. To show that the complex u/e-ambiguity is always possible, I started out with bis ('until 'j-data without overt quantifiers. These should be ambiguous. Introspective data taken from various native speakers of German, however, did not confirm this. While the u-readings were always judged OK, the e-readings were rejected. Nearly nobody would come up with an e-reading of sentences like the following: (3.2-1)

Eristbis drei gerannt he is until three run 'he ran until three'

After this experience, I thought it might be safer to use overt quantifiers, where the readings should be clear. If the quantifier precedes the durative, we should get a ureading, the intervals denoted by the durative would in a way be 'counted' by the quantifier. And if the durative precedes the quantifier, we should get an e-reading, as the VP-events within the interval denoted by the durative would be 'counted' by the quantifier. With this idea in mind, I confronted my informants with the following introspective data: (3.2-2)

u-reading: Eristdreimal bis drei gerannt he is three-times until three run 'he ran three times until three'

(3.2-3)

e-reading: Eristbis drei dreimal gerannt he is until three three-times run 'he ran until three three times'

This test was a disaster. People got very confused and finally rejected the sentences as ungrammatical. Does this tell us something about the unavailability of the complex u/e-ambiguity? One might think so at first. But the problem wasn't the ambiguity; the problem was the chosen datatype. Introspective data, maybe intuition about grammar in general, can be very misleading. If (like in (3.2-l)-(3.2-3)) you take an isolated introspective sentence without any context, and choose a VP-event that comes close to a nonsense-activity, it is with no surprise that your informants get confused. The phenomenon as such is so subtle that a bad introspective setup may lead to a wrong conclusion. Introspective data were not helpful, but as I had the intuition that the ambiguity as such exists, I chose another datatype, namely corpus-data. And this is what I found with this datatype: a lot of corpus-data display e-readings, and thereby rescue the complex u/e-ambiguity. These data are e-readings with covert quantifiers. I come to them in a minute. It does not follow from this that the complex u/e-ambiguity only exists with the datatype "corpus-data" and that it is 'excluded' from other datatypes like "introspective

3.2. My proposals for Duratives and XN-Adverbs

143

data". Rather, it means that it is wrong to rely on only one datatype. The complex u/eambiguity exists; authentic data from the web prove this. But introspective data from my informants show that there are some difficulties with the processing of the complex u/e-ambiguity, especially with the e-readings. These difficulties should also be explained; I will return to them at the end of this section 3.3.1. In the following table, 'V' means that this tense-^fa/'oMsart-combination exists with bis ("until',), and 'A' means that the complex u/e-ambiguity is attested. To my standards, the complex u/e-ambiguity is attested as soon as I have convincing examples with e-readings. I f you want to have a look at the concrete examples corresponding to this table, go to section 2.3.1.1. (3.2-4)

table: bis ('until')

states Pluperfect Preterite Perfect Present Future Future II

U U U V,A I A

activities V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A

achievements U V,A V,A V,A V,A V,A

accomplishments V,A V,A IA V,A V,A U

One generalization comes out clearly: states and activities pattern together, and achievements and accomplishments pattern together. To capture this generalization, the term 'cumulativity' might be used. States and activities are both cumulative, while achievements and accomplishments are not. To be precise, I use Stechow's definition o f cumulativity: (3.2-5)

A property P of events/states is cumulative if we have it for two adjacent P-events ei and e2 that their mereological sum ei+e2 is a P-event as well. ((Stechow, 2002, p. 394))

Cumulative Aktionsarts allow both the u- and the e-reading. Non-cumulative Aktionsarts only allow the e-reading. This must be a natural consequence of the lexical decomposition you do. I did some lexical decomposition in my MA-paper ((Rathert, 1999)), pretty much in the style o f (Stechow, 1996). I will give some examples with full decomposition later on in this section. From these decomposed examples, it will be clear why cumulative Aktionsarts allow both the u- and the e-reading while noncumulative Aktionsarts only allow the e-reading. However, in later sections in this thesis, I will leave the VPs undecomposed, simply to ease reading. As for the Present, all sentences must be analyzed as semantic Futures. It is impossible for both the u- as well as the e-reading to be applied to a point o f time (remember that I analyze the Present as a point). This may be clear for the u-reading as it involves duration. But it is also the case with the e-reading, as it involves not only the short intervals of the events themselves, but also the bis ('until')-interval itself which has duration. I will give examples with the Present as a semantic Future later in this section. Let us go to the analysis of a simple u/e-ambiguous example now.

144 (3.2-6)

3. Presenting my own proposals Charly istbis gestern gerannt Charly is until yesterday run 'Charly ran until yesterday'

These are the trees for the u- and the e-reading: (3.2-7)

trees for (3.2-6) universalreading

existentialreading

To translate this, we only need the meaning rule for bis ('until'). Notice the similarity with the abstract or covert preposition 0 that was used in section 3.1.1 for the analysis of Perfect-sentences containing solely the overt deictic adverb gestern ('yesterday'). (3.2-8)

F(bis)(z)(P)(t)= 1 iff Bt' € Di [end(t')çz & t'çt & P(t')].

Type: , This yields the following as translations of the trees: (3.2-9) u-reading: 3teDi [t=s* & Bt'eDj [ t a c t & 3t"eDi [t"çf & 3tm e D„ [end(t"')çYEST & t'"çt" & VP is true at t'"]]]]

145

3.2. My proposals for Duratives and XN-Adverbs

e-reading: 3te Di [t=s* & 3t'e Dt [t'=>ct & 3t"e Di [end(t")cYEST & t"ct' & 3tm e Dj. [t"'ct" &VP is true at t'"]]]] See also the pictures, illustrating the outcome: (3.2-10) diagrams of (3.2-9) u-reading: VP is true at t'"

EST

* y — t"ct' »Y— t'3Ct

until yesterday=t"', t " t t " t=s*

ÌliK> J

e-reading:

t'3Ct In the case of the u-reading, the VP-interval covers the whole UNTILYESTERDAY-interval. But with the e-reading, the VP-interval covers only a part of this UNTIL-YESTERDAY-interval. This is precisely what we want, thus the scopesolution seems to be on the right track. Several people at conference-presentations and also some anonymous reviewers of my papers between my MA-paper and this dissertation suggested to me that the covert quantificational adverb 3 C might be omitted in the case of the u-reading. These people argued that we get a true u-reading also without It would suffice that the UNTILYESTERDAY-interval would be placed in the Extended-Now-interval, without some intervening 3 = . Thus, these people suggest using 3 = only for the e-reading. These would be the trees according to these people:

146

3. Presenting my own proposals

(3.2-11) trees for (3.2-6) universal reading:

Pres

bis gestern

Charly gerannt

existential reading:

u^ bis gestern Charly gerannt This would mean that the complex u/e-ambiguity receives no scope-solution. Because, with the u-reading at least, there is no scope interaction between 3 C and the durative as 3 S is not there at all. It would also mean that the u-reading and the ereading are different in essence: the e-reading involves the element 3 = that is not needed for the u-reading. This would be the translation of the last but one tree: (3.2-12) u-reading (if is omitted - this is NOT my proposal!): 3te Di [t=s* & 3t'e Dj [ f o c t & 3t"e Di [end(t")cYEST & t"ct' & VP is true at t"]]] (3.2-13) diagram of (3.2-12) VP is true at t" until yesterday=t", t"et' YEST

t=s*

ct & P(t)]. Type: (3.2-27) BOTH RIGHT! u-reading: 3te Di [s*3ct & 3t'e Di [t'ct & 3t"e Di. [end(t")c3 & t"ct' & VP is true at t"]]] e-reading: 3te Di [s*3ct & 3t'e D, [end(t')c3 & t'ct & 3t"e D,. [t"ct' &VP is true at t"]]] (3.2-28) diagrams of (3.2-27) u-reading:

153

3.2. My proposals for Duratives and XN-Adverbs e-reading: VP is true at t" until 3=t\ t'ct 3

S*DCt

In the case of the u-reading, the VP-interval covers the whole UNTIL-3-interval. But with the e-reading, the VP-interval covers only a part of this UNTIL-3-interval. This is precisely what we want. However, as nice as all my examples of the e-readings of the complex u/e-ambiguity may be - it is simply not enough to state that e-readings arise if the durative scopes over the quantifier. Something more has to be said, as a lot of speakers seem to have aversions against e-readings. What makes these people worry? First, I believe that people showing resentments against e-readings in general and partially even against my authentic e-reading-data from the web are not simply incompetent speakers of their language. The people I asked are all well educated. Second, I believe that their resentments don't tell us that the phenomenon as such doesn't exist - the data I collected in the web do exist, after all. Rather, these resentments show that there are factors that hinder the processing of e-readings. The first hindering factor is a covert quantifier. The scope of durative and quantifier must be turned around in order to get e-readings at all. This is less easy with a covert than with an overt quantifier. Everybody admits that the following example with an overt quantifier shows an e-reading: (3.2-29) Bis Mitternachtging er dreimal rauchen until midnight went he three-times smoke 'until midnight, he smoked three times' But with covert quantifiers, things are less clear: (3.2-30) Bis Mitternacht rauchte er until midnight smoked he 'until midnight he smoked' Only some of my informants came up with an e-reading for this sentence. Most won't get such a reading, however, but interpret the sentence iteratively (in the sense that he smoked one after the other until midnight). The second hindering factor in the processing of e-readings is the singularity of events. E-readings are about verbal actions within the interval denoted by the durative. They are easier to understand if there are many such actions, because then, the interval denoted by the durative seems to be 'filled'. And if this interval is properly 'filled', the e-reading is no longer so very different from the more familiar u-reading. The acceptance of such sentences is quite good.

154

3. Presenting my own proposals

(3.2-31) Bis Mitternachtrauchte er zwanzig Zigarren until midnight smoked he twenty cigars 'until midnight he smoked twenty cigars' But in cases with only single events, e-readings are a little problematic: (3.2-32) Bis Mitternacht rauchte er eine Zigarre until midnight smoked he one cigar 'until midnight he smoked one cigar' Some people come up with an e-reading at once. Some interpret the action as covering the whole time until midnight, with the fire of the cigar dying now and then and then being lit again. The third hindering factor in the processing of e-readings is defmiteness. If only one single event is at issue (and we just saw that this is difficult as such), the e-reading will be easier to understand if this event is about an indefinite object: (3.2-33) Bis Mai gab sie einen Aufsatzab until May gave she one paper away 'until May she delivered one paper' Definite objects tend to cause problems: (3.2-34) Bis Mai gab sie den Aufsatzab until May gave she the paper away 'until May she delivered the paper' The conclusion I draw from these three hindering factors I blame for the resentment people have against e-readings is the following. People are simply more or less willing to allow a divergence from normal u-readings. Some divergences are heavier than others. And acceptance is of course better the less heavy a divergence is. Optimality-Theory (=OT) is quite apt to handle such phenomena, and I will suggest an analysis in terms of OT now. I will use OT also at other places in this dissertation (see section 3.2.3 and the schon-immer/oft-an&lysis). I assume the following constraints: (3.2-35) SEMANTICS: Sentences with duratives disallow u-readings with noncumulative Aktionsarts. SEMANTICS is violated with u-readings displaying non-cumulative Aktionsarts. For example, SEMANTICS is violated with the u-reading of (3.2-33). (3.2-36) COVERT-3 c : Sentences with duratives disallow e-readings that lack an overt quantifier. COVERT-3 c is violated with e-readings that lack an overt quantifier. For example, COVERT-3 = is violated with the e-reading of (3.2-30). (3.2-37) SINGULARITY 1 : Sentences with duratives disallow e-readings if they are about a singular event. However, maybe a completely different approach is also possible. Example (3.2-31) involves a plural, and so do many e-readings, cf. the data in chapter 3.3.1. This may suggest that there is no

3.2. My proposals for Duratives and XN-Adverbs

155

SINGULARITY is violated with e-readings talking about single actions. For example, SINGULARITY is violated with the e-reading of (3.2-32). (3.2-38) DEFINITENESS: Sentences with duratives disallow e-readings if they are about a definite object. DEFINITENESS is violated with e-readings involving a definite object. For example, DEFINITENESS is violated with the e-reading of (3.2-34). But how does this work? What is the ranking? This is where the individuality of the speaker comes into play. Some speakers (among them myself, let me call them 'lax speakers') will rank SEMANTICS high in their grammar, and the three other constraints so low that they never play a role: (3.2-39) ranking for 'lax speakers': SEMANTICS » Constrain^ » Constraint 2 » ... » Constraint^» Constraint,,» COVERT-3c » SINGULARITY » DEFINITENESS This means that only SEMANTICS counts, we get both e- and u-readings with the cumulative Aktionsarts, and we get only e-readings with non-cumulative Aktionsarts. Other speakers will tie up SEMANTICS with the three constraints COVERT-3c, SINGULARITY, and DEFINITENESS. That is, violations of COVERT-3c, SINGULARITY, and DEFINITENESS will count as much as violations of SEMANTICS. Let me call these speakers 'strict speakers'. This is the ranking they use: (3.2-40) ranking for 'strict speakers': SEMANTICS 0 COVERT-3= ° SINGULARITY ° DEFINITENESS » Constraint! » Constraint 2 » ... » Constraint^» Constrain^ " » " stands for domination as usual. The notation "SEMANTICS ° COVERT-3c 0 SINGULARITY ° DEFINITENESS" represents the tie of these constraints. The basic idea of a tie is that two (or more) constraints are equally important. In tableaux, the tie of constraints will be represented by vertical dotted lines. There are various concepts of tie in the literature, cf. (Mueller, 1999) for an overview. To be precise, I use the concept of conjunctive local ties, which has been adopted by (Legendre et al., 1995), (Legendre et al., 1998) and (Mueller, 1997). Within this concept, a tie is treated as an ordinary constraint. The two (or more) constraints of the tie are merged into a single constraint that is interpreted via logical conjunction: A candidate violates a tie if it violates a constraint that is part of this tie, and multiple violations add up. (3.2-41) Conjunctive local tie ((Mueller, 1999)) Suppose that T = < CONj » ...CONj... » CON n > is a total constraint order in language L, and CONj (lct & 3t"e D; [beg(t")cgestern & t"et' & VP is true at t"]]] e-reading: 3te Di [t=s* & 3t'e D, [fc>ct & 3t"e Dj [beg(t")cgestem & t"ct' & 3t'" g Dj. [t m ct" &VP is true at t"']]]] See also the pictures, illustrating the outcome: (3.2-69) diagrams of (3.2-68) u-reading: since yesterday=t"

The rule for ab would be the same, just without the syncategorematic addendum: F(ab)(z)(P)(t)=l iff 3t' e D„ [beg(t')cz & t'ct & P(t')]. Type: < i , « i , t > , < i , t » >

3.2. My proposals for Duratives and XN-Adverbs

165

e-reading: since yesterdayct"

With achievements, there is no true u-reading: (3.2-70) Die Bombe ist seit gestern explodiert (e-reading and quasi-u-reading) the bomb is since yesterday exploded ""the bomb is exploded since yesterday' With the quasi-u-reading, the event happens at the beginning of the se/7-interval. It should first of all be clear that this reading is no adjectival passive. If it were an adjectival passive, we would have no VP (or VoiceP) but an AP. Conversion, however, would be possible with the perfectivizer PERFECT of (Kratzer, 1994): according to her, adjecival participles are conversions from verbal participles. The zero-affix needed she names PERFECT; it has this denotation: (3.2-71) PERFECT-X,PA,ss3es [P(e) & ¡ r f ^ e ) ] . Take the following example to see how it functions. This is the lexical entry for build: (3.2-72) build' XxXe [building(e) & exist(x) (furget(e))]. Function composition yields the following: (3.2-73) (build PERFECT)' = A,xXss3es [Xe [building(e) & exist(x) (ftarget(e))] (e) & 5 = ^ 2 1 ( 6 ) ] = XxXss3es [building(e) & exist(x) (ftarget(e)) & s=ftarget(e)] = XxA.ss3es [building(e) & exist(x)(s) & s = f t a r g e t ( e ) ] . Thus, the quasi-u-reading could be an adjectival passive. But notice that there is also a haben-varimt with a quasi-u-reading: (3.2-74) Charlie hat die Lampe seit gestern umgeworfen Charly has the lamp since yesterday pushed '*Charly pushed the lamp since yesterday' It is impossible that haben agrees with an AP delivered by PERFECT. Therefore, I believe that with the quasi-u-reading, there is no AP at all. It is a remarkable feature of these sentences that seit may be substituted with um: (3.2-75) (?)Charlie hat die Arbeit seit 3 abgegeben Charly has the work since 3 submitted 'Charly submitted the work at 3'

166

3. Presenting my own proposals = Charlie hat die Arbeit um 3 abgegeben Charly has the work at 3 submitted 'Charly submitted the work at 3'

The w/M-sentence is OK and verbal, but the corresponding se/i-sentence is only marginally acceptable. Maybe those who accept it reinterpret it as a «/«-sentence. In this context, it is very interesting to have a look at certain haben-activities like duschen 'to shower'. Usually, you say ich habe geduscht ('I took a shower'). But if you want to talk about the results of showering, you use sein: (3.2-76) Ich bin seit 3 geduscht I am since 3 showered 'I've been clean since 3' These are adjectival passives, and seit is not exchangeable with another prepositionen: * ich bin um 3 geduscht. (Latzel, 1977, p. 160f.) takes a similar stand: (610) Seit einem Vierteljahr ist mein Mann nach Pforzheim gezogen (611) Seit 1965 haben sich die Russen ... auf eine Strategie der flexiblen Erwiderung umgestellt [...] Wiederum ist zu sagen, daß die zitierten Belege wohl Systemabweichungen darstellen. Sie scheinen in Anlehnung an die durchaus korrekten Sätze vom Typ (613) und (614) gebildet zu sein: (613) Die Braut ist seitdem spurlos verschwunden (614) Müller ist seit Dienstag verreist [...] Daß Sätze wie die oben zitierten Sonderfälle darstellen, zeigt das folgende Beispiel: Auch wenn der Nachzustand ein Haus haben zu dem Sachverhalt: (616) Webski hat sich 1972 ein Haus gebaut. noch besteht (und seit 1972 besteht), kann man nicht sagen: (617) * Webski hat sich seit 1972 ein Haus gebaut. Ausländer sollte man auf jeden Fall davor warnen, punktuelle Verben [...] mit seit{P) im Perfekt zu gebrauchen [...]. Ich habe an Fehlern notiert: (618) * Die Amerikaner haben seit 15 Jahren beschlossen, die Grenzen des Agrarmarkts aufzuheben (619) * Goethe ist seit mehr als hundert Jahren gestorben (620) * Die Slums sind seit einiger Zeit weggemacht Finally, remember that the complex u/e-ambiguity also exists with Preteritesentences. Here is an example with a Preterite (if you prefer authentic data, go to section 3.3.1): (3.2-77) Charly rannte seit gestern Charly ran since yesterday 'Charly has run since yesterday' These are the trees for the u- and the e-reading:

3.2. My proposals for Duratives and XN-Adverbs

167

(3.2-78) trees for (3.2-65) universal reading:

Past seit gestern

Charly rannte

existentialreading

PJ> seit gestern

Yp Charly rannte

'c

These are my translations: (3.2-79) u-reading: Bte Di [t < s* & 3t'e Dj [beg(t')cgestern & t'ct & VP is true at t']] e-reading: 3te D; [t < s* & 3t'e Dj [beg(t')cgestern & t'et & 3t" e D;. [t"ct' &VP is true at t"]]] See also the pictures, illustrating the outcome: (3.2-80) diagrams of (3.2-68) u-reading: .since yesterday=t'

t , < i , t » (3) F(Pres)(P)=l iff 3tE Dj [t=s* & P(t)]. Type: (4) F(Past)(P)=l iff 3te D; [t < s* & P(t)]. Type: (5) F(Fut)(P)= 1 iff 3te Di [S*DC!& P(t)]. Type: The adverbs: (6) F(bis)(z)(P)(t)=l iff 3t' G Di [end(t')cz & t'ct & P(t')]. Type: , (7) F(seit)(z)(P)(t)=l iff 3t' G D„ [beg(t')cz & t'ct & P(t')]. Type: ,. Syncategorematic requirement: t must be from PERF or from PRET (8) F(ab)(z)(P)(t)=l iff 3t' e Dj. [beg(t')cz & t'ct & P(t')]. Type: , (9) F(until)(z)(P)(t)= 1 iff 3t' G Dt. [end(t')cz & t'ct & P(t')]. Type: , (10) F(since)(z)(P)(t)= 1 iff 3t' G Dj. [beg(t')cz & t'ct & P(t')]. Type: ,. Syncategorematic requirement: t must be from PERF (11) F(lang)(z)(P)(t)=l iff 3t' G Di. [dur(t*)=z & t'ct & P(t') & PATTERNABLE (P)]. Type: , (12) F(for)(z)(P)(t)=l iff 3t' G Dj. [dur(t')=z & t'ct & P(t') & PATTERNABLE (P)]. Type: , (13) F(schon immer)(P)(t)=l iff left-infinite(t) & Vt'eDj [t'ct & C(t')^ P(t')]. Type: « i , t > , < i , t » (14) F(schon seit)(z)(P)(t)=l iff St'cDi [beg(t')cz & toct & P(t')]. Type: ,. Syncategorematic requirements: t must be from PRES and no interaction with quantifiers (15) F(3J(P)(t)=l iff 3t'GDi [t'ct& P(t')]. Type: (16) F(gestern) = the day before the day containing s*. Type: i. Writing convention: use YEST instead of the complicated "the day before the day containing s*" (17) F(morgeri) = the day after the day containing s*. Type: i. Writing convention: use TOM instead of the complicated "the day after the day containing s*" (18) F(nach 2 Jahren)(P)(t) = 1 iff 3t'c D; [t'ct&t* = end(2 yearsc)& P(t')]. Type: « i , t > , < i , t » (19) F(um 2)(P)(t) = 1 iff 3t'G Dj [t'ct&t' = 2C & P(t')]. Type:

244

4. List of meaning rules

Other things: (20) The VP: F(VP)(t)=l iff VP is true at time t. Type: (21) The covert preposition " 0 " which is used for yesterday. F(0)(z)(P)(t)=l iff z c t & P(z). Type: < i , « i , t > , < i , t » > (22) PATTERNABLE (P) is true iff P allows to be divided up into a regular pattern

5. Summary

As for the German Perfect, Anteriority-approaches are dominant in the literature. Most researchers assume a Reichenbachian framework ((Comrie, 1995); (Thieroff, 1992, 1994); (Ehrich, 1992); (Musan, 2000, 2001); (Latzel, 1977); (Herweg, 1990); (Ballweg, 1988)). Although this approach is so widely accepted, it suffers from several weaknesses. The first and most important is that no Anteriority account can deal with Extended-Now-adverbs. Second, most Reichenbachian analyses do not commit themselves to any syntactic structures ((Comrie, 1995); (Thieroff, 1992, 1994); (Ehrich, 1992); (Latzel, 1977); (Herweg, 1990); (Ballweg, 1988)). The only exception is (Musan, 2000, 2001). Unfortunately, Musan's syntax is a little weird: she assumes aspect to be above the Perfect; a constellation which does not occur in natural language. My syntax is more standard. As for the futurate Perfect, most Anteriority theories ((Comrie, 1995); (Thieroff, 1992, 1994); (Ehrich, 1992); (Latzel, 1977)) propose E