Nordic Journal of Linguisticshttp://journals.cambridge.org/NJL

Additional services for Nordic Journal of Linguistics:

Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

Incremental “Walls”

Mila Dimitrova­Vulchanova

Nordic Journal of Linguistics / Volume 21 / Issue 01 / June 1998, pp 1 ­ 16DOI: 10.1017/S0332586500004121, Published online: 14 October 2010

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0332586500004121

How to cite this article:Mila Dimitrova­Vulchanova (1998). Incremental “Walls”. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 21, pp 1­16 doi:10.1017/S0332586500004121

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/NJL, IP address: 147.188.128.74 on 26 Apr 2013

Incremental "Walls'

Mila Dimitrova-Vulchanova

Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M. 1998. Incremental "Walls". Nordic Journal of Linguistics21, 1-16.

The present paper addresses the well-known alternation type "spray paint on the wall/spray the wall with paint" which has received extensive attention in the literature. Thediscussion is based on Germanic data (English, German and Norwegian) and data fromone Slavic language (Bulgarian). In trying to amend previous proposals (e.g. Tenny1987, 1994, Jackendoff 1996) and resolve issues left open in those works, the currentanalysis suggests that the semantic properties of both entities involved in a situationdenoted by "spray" are relevant for the aspectual properties of the respectiveconstructions headed by "spray", i.e. both the substance sprayed, and the surfacesubjected to spraying. It is proposed that the aspectual properties of such constructionsreside primarily in the semantic characterization, including the ontological properties,of the latter, coupled to their linguistic realization as distinct types of noun phrases.

Mila Dimitrova-Vulchanova, Department of English, NTNU, 7055 Dragvoll, Trond-heim, Norway. Email: mila.vulchanova@hfntnu.no

1. INTRODUCTIONThe view that themes are the kind of argument that contributes mostextensively to the aspectual value of telicity has already found sufficientsupport among linguists. In particular, it has been suggested that a themehelps in "measuring out" the event (Tenny 1987, 1994), whereby theprogress of the event (e.g. towards completion) can be seen as directlycontingent on the incremental growth of the theme. Thus, the notion ofincrementality has become central in accounting for the observation that,more often than not, the aspectual value of a predicate can be representedas a function mapping the successive points (or intersections) of the themeonto points/intersections of the situation (cf. Tenny 1987, 1994, Dowty1991 for the notion of "incremental theme"). In this respect, a crucialissue is the linking of the advance of the theme along some dimensionalparameter to the temporal structure of the situation, i.e. the progress intime. Krifka's (1992) approach introduces three sorts of elements(predicates) that ought to be represented formally for each eventpredicate: objects (characterized by a predicate O), events (characterizedby a predicate E), and times (characterized by a predicate T). All threedomains are related to each other by the respective mapping functions,ensuring homomorphism of the construction. Thus, there is mapping fromobjects to events, and mapping from, events to objects,1 as well asmapping events to their "run time" (temporal trace).

1

Due to the homoinoiphism, properties of the object can be carried overto the aspectual properties of the predicate as a whole, as in the case ofquantized nominal expressions which yield a telic (quantized) interpreta-tion of the verbal predicate (e.g. as in eat an apple)? The reverse alsoseems possible in Krifka's system, where predicates are combined bymeans of the two-place operation [_\ (join). Verkuyl (1993) also appliesthe notion of function from time to the domain of spatial co-ordinates torepresent, for example, paths for verbs of motion., whereas therepresentation of verbs such as eat is treated as an extension of the pathfunction representation, i.e. as based on space traversal In a similar vein,Jackendoff (1996) claims that what he calls "structure-preservingbinding", which is a relation between the dimensional structure of theargument, the time interval, and the event, plays a paramount role fortelicity. A striking result in Jackendoff's analysis is that, despite thetheoretical options his approach allows for, no reasonable (formal)account is offered for the notorious spray/'load alternation, as illustrated in(1).

(1) a. He sprayed the paint on the wall in an hour/*for an hour.b. He sprayed the wall with paint in an hour/ <*> for an hour.4

Jackendoff's proposal is that the ambiguous telicity of (1b) is due to thefact that it is invariably the theme (i.e. paint) which measures thesituation, and as long as it is of non-specified quantity, the construction isnot telic. Even though the alternation in (1) is not discussed in Krifka(1992), one would expect that the aspectual ambiguity of (1b) would beresolved in terms of the possibility of an iterative interpretation when thenominal expression referring to the wall is quantized.

My proposal will be that in (la, b), the aspectual interpretation of theconstruction is contingent on both participants, i.e. the wall and the paint,and that the "measuring" capacity of both resides exclusively in thelexical specification of the head verb. It will be argued that constructionsof this type receive unambiguous telic interpretations only if bothelements are realized syntactically as quantified/definite noun phrases.The latter condition can be defined as both necessary and sufficient forlanguages such as English, which rely exclusively on syntax for theexpression of aspectual distinctions.

2. PROBLEMS WITH PREVIOUS ANALYSESTo the extent that some of the approaches mentioned above treat verbalexpressions as predicates, thus emphasizing the difference rather than thesimilarities between different syntactic realizations of the same verb (cf.e.g. run vs run a mile), I will refrain from commenting on them. Here, I

discuss briefly only the relevant points in two salient approachescommitted to investigating the syntax/Aspect interface with a startingpoint in the lexical semantic properties attributed to the head verb.

One such approach, reflecting a systematic attempt to represent theinterface of thematic and aspectual factors, is given in Tenny (1987,1994). Among Tenny's central claims is that the aspectual properties ofconstructions depend invariably on the entity realized as direct argumentof the verb, that is to say as a DO. As a consequence, syntax plays thedecisive role, e.g. she speaks about possible aspectual interpretationswhich are "grammatically forced". A crucial criterion is that there is onlyone "measuring out" for each event, which, of course, follows if weidentify the "measure" with the direct object, as there is only one DO perconstruction.

Jackendoff (1996) rejects Tenny's insistence that it is invariably thedirect argument which affects the aspectual properties of constructions, asaspectually salient entities can receive other syntactic realizations (cf.(lb) or the PP in walk to the store.) However, he maintains the view thatthe measure is associated with only one entity, e.g. the paint in (lb).

Both Tenny and Jackendoff are representative of the widely supportedassumption that the aspectual interpretation of predicates depends entirelyon the unique thematic relation between the event and only one argumentfor each verbal predicate (cf. Krifka 1992). To the extent that this is mostcommonly the case for the aspectual interpretation of individual syntacticrealizations, and in the light of standard 0-role theory, this seems a naturalresult. I will entertain a different approach, which looks at the roleselements play in the semantic characterization of verbs, not individual(event) predicates. I make an attempt at both predicting and accountingfor the aspectual properties of constructions primarily in terms of theseroles.

3. A PROPOSAL,The essence of my proposal here is that the measuring of situations is notnecessarily linked to one entity. All the situations subsumed by themeanings of verbs such as spray, load, smear, spread, and sow, can bedescribed as built on the recursion of specific cycles of ejecting/applyinga substance on a surface or into a three-dimensional container. Thus, thenatural end of the situation will be reached when

A. all the substance is gone (from its original container); and/orB. the surface/container is thoroughly affected, i.e. has changed as a

result of the situation having been achieved.

A third possibility is for the situation to have an end in time, which would

be external to its temporal constituency, and thereby not natural. We willnot consider cases like this at present (cf. the notion of "inner/outertime").

Thus the fulfilment ("completedness", from now on) of situations canbe seen as a function from one sub-situation, defined by the spending andapplication of the substance onto some surface, to another sub-situation,this time defined by the gradual growth of a new quality concerning thesurface of application. The more detailed description below will recognizeeven more aspects, or what can be called "related components", of thesituation. For the time being, we have established that at least two entitiesare involved in the natural "growth" of this type of situation, and can beemployed in representing its "incremental" nature.

3.1. The FrameworkThe analysis is based on a framework currently being developed atTrondheim University, dubbed the "Sign Model" (cf. Dimitrova-Vulchanova 1996, Hellan & Dimitrova-Vulchanova 1998), whose aim,among other things, is avoiding the confusion which arises by using thetraditional "thematic" role terminology. Instead, the participants insituations are treated as elements defined in terms of a fixed number ofbasic parameters, an essential one being the parameter of monodevelop-ment. The latter subsumes all situation types characterized by a persistentunidirectional change. Following from the way monodevelopment isdefined, there may be only one basic parameter per monodevelopmentwith respect to which a change obtains, here referred to as the medium.Thus, the distinctive criterion for a monodevelopment is the medium.Along the same lines, there can be distinguished an entity (or a collectionof entities) which is involved in each monodevelopment, which we callthe monodeveloper. In terms of the semantic representation of situations,for each distinct monodevelopment there can be only one element (orgroup of elements) entered as the monodeveloper. For instance, for thesituation type referred to by fall, the monodevelopment is characterizedby the medium "location", subtype: "horizontal". With respect to thecorrespondence to real world objects, however, it can be the case that thesame entity participates in a number of monodevelopments, each along adifferent parameter. For instance, in the throw situation type, the objectthrown is involved in two distinct monodevelopments, corresponding totwo stages/components of the situation: namely, the ejection actcharacterized by a two-point change with respect to the parameter ofinness (relative to the ejection part, e.g. the object is held in the hand andthen released), and, subsequently, a locational monodevelopmentcharacterized by trajectory traversal. This is a relevant point for theanalysis of verbs like spray, as it turns out that both participants,

corresponding to the wall, and, to the paint, respectively, in (1) above, canbe characterized by monotonic change in terms of more than one medium.Thus, the portions of paint are similar to objects thrown in that they areinvolved in both an act of ejection and a locational monodevelopmentwhose terminal point is contiguous to the terminal surface (e.g. the wall).The representation of participant identity in such cases is ensured by co-indexation in the semantic representation.

The notion of monodevelopment allows for an adequate treatment of allthe incremental elements in a situation, independently of their "thematic"status, e.g. whether they are themes, paths, or something else. I will arguethat, in a situation to which spray can apply, both the paint and the wallcan be reasonably represented as monodevelopers, and that the aspectualsignificance of both resides precisely in their monodeveloper status. Thenotion of monodevelopment can be seen as useful in one other respect: itavoids the current proliferation of various names for the seeminglydistinct classes of verbs allowing for the spray I load alternation,6 Byemphasizing this aspect of the present framework, it is not my aim to denythe semantic distinctions which can be observed among the classesmaintained. My point is that the syntactic potential of the verbs inquestion can be accounted for by a single semantic property shared by allthose verbs, namely the monodevelopmental dimension, even thoughother properties may be important in other respects.

In addition, I will claim that the uncertain telicity value of the Englishexample in (1b) resides in the syntactic realization of the constructiontype, specific to English. The latter is contrasted to languages such asBulgarian, where a strict correlation can be observed between therealization of the wall as direct object and aspectual prefigation of theverb, illustrated in (2) by pruskam ('spray').

(2) a. Toj pruskase boja po stenatahe sprayed (imperf.) paint on wall-the

a'. Toj ziapraska stenata s boja (Bulgarian)he be-sprayed (perf.) wall-the with paint

A comparison to some other Germanic languages reveals that thecondition assumed with respect to unambiguous aspectual interpretationfor English holds in the same way for verbs whose lexical specificationpresupposes a situation type figuring two distinct monodeveloper entities.Thus, the German equivalent of spray, spruhen, behaves in exactly thesame way as in English with respect to ambiguity of the aspectualinterpretation (cf. (3a, a')), whereas malen, a verb which seems similar tospruhen, exhibits a different regularity in the aspectual interpretation ofthe alternation construction (cf. (3b, b')).

(3) a. Er spriihte die Farbe In elner Stunde/? eine Stunde lang an die Wand.'he sprayed the paint in an hour/for an hour on the wall'

a'. Er bespriihte die Wand in einer Stunde/eine Stunde lang mlt Farbe.'he 'be'-sprayed the wall in one hour/for an hour with paint'

b. Er malte auf die Wand. (German)b'. Er feemalte die Wand.

It will be claimed that the unambiguous completed interpretation of (3b')resides in two related factors, namely the fact that, unlike spruhen, onlyone monodeveloper element can be assumed for malen, die Wand ('thewall'), and that in the alternative syntactic realization of this verbillustrated in (3b')5 direct object realization of the monodeveloper iscombined with fee-incorporation, a situation reminiscent of perfectiveprefigation in Slavic.

3.2. The AnalysisHere I present an analysis of English spray on the assumption that it canbe extended to cover, at least in part, the meaning of its translationequivalents in some other languages, such as Bulgarian, German andNorwegian. As already noticed by many (cf. Tenny 1994, Jackendoff1996, Levin 1993 for a survey), verbs of the spray type "specify somespatial distribution of the theme" (Jackendoff 1996). More specifically,"the theme must be something like a material that can be consumed inIncrements over time, and the goal Is . . . something that can contain, or befilled up by, the material" (Tenny 1994). This gives us the two entitiesinvolved, the substance subject to distribution, and the surface/container,which Is the terminal point of this distribution.

In terms of the present framework, a situation subsumed by themeaning of spray1 can be represented as conditioning, whereby thedistribution of the material on/into the terminal area is to be identifiedwith the conditioned part of this situation. The latter, In turn, clearlyInstantiates what was Introduced above as monodevelopment. From thebrief Informal description of spray above, It can be deduced that bothentitles, i.e. the substance and the surface/container, can be represented asmonodevelopers, each along a distinct parameter. Thus, the substance, bybeing distributed, moves along a path (a one-dimensional object) from itsoriginal container to the terminal area, whereas the terminal areagradually gets covered/filled by the substance, this being a two-/three-dimensional change* However, this is still only a rough picture of what thespray situation presupposes.

An important feature of the spray situation is the mass nature of thesprayed substance. It follows, then, that the latter will be distributed Inportions, and not In a single (inchoative) act.8 This, In turn, suggests that

even though the particles of substance eventually get distributed on theterminal surface, the ejection act itself is cascadic, i.e. the particles(collectively) leave the original container, and this cycle is repeated overtime. The latter characterization of spray gives grounds for defining it as asituation based on cascadic recursion. That the act of ejection is a distinct,and possibly independent, chunk of the meaning of spray, is illustrated inthe Bulgarian intransitive use of pruska ('spray9) with duzd ('rain') assubject in (4). It will be clear from, the item realized as subject in (4) thatno conditioning can be assumed in the semantic representation for thisrealization of the verb.

(4) a. (Za) pruska duzd(inch.) sprayed rain'It (started) is drizzling'

b. Pruskat kapki duzdspray (3pl) drops rain'Drops of rain are falling'

Another piece of evidence for the cascadic (portion-like) nature ofspraying is found in Bulgarian 0~nominalizations such as prusk-al-i(patch/es of substance sprayed).

The ejection component of spray has another salient aspect, namely thegradual process of the original container becoming empty. The containerentity does not have significance in itself. Its role is to provide a measurefor the original quantity of substance sprayed, and consequently it iscrucial in deciding whether the whole quantity has been spent. The latterfactor is here considered as capable of accounting for the first basic"part" of the meaning of the spray type, namely the fact that somesubstance gets ejected (whether by means of some device, or not, is leftunspecified in the meaning of spray), thus leaving its original container.The relation of the set of portions being ejected to the original quantitycan be reasonably represented by a linear function. Eventually, the twosets may be equated, giving rise to a completed situation with respect tothe substance distributed.

The "original container "-oriented component in the representation ofthe spray situation is responsible for generating a construction where thesubstance element is realized as direct object (or, alternatively, as subject,provided the language in question allows for intransitive use of spray, cf.the Bulgarian examples in (4) above). This syntactic realizationcorresponds to a completed aspectual interpretation, provided thesubstance element is realized as a quantified/definite noun phrase. Thequestion now is why this seems sufficient for the construction receiving acompleted aspectual value. Is the second monodeveloper {the wall)rendered insignificant in some way? A straightforward answer is no. The

explanation is that objects subject to spraying are by rale quantized (inKrifka's terms), that is to say, unlike cumulative (mass) objects, they aredefined by delimitation boundaries. Thus, the aspectual interpretation ofthe construction as a whole will depend exclusively on the type ofnominal reference associated with, and the syntactic realization of, thesubstance participant. Theoretically, there always exists the option ofiterative/distributive interpretation when the reference of the wall iscumulative, i.e. plural As illustrated in (5) below, the correspondingconstruction is ambiguous:

(5) He sprayed the paint on the walls ?in an hour/for an hour/for hours.

The next chunk of the spray situation relates to the batches of substanceparticles ending on the terminal surface. It seems plausible to representthis component of the semantic representation of spray in terms of afunction of the type in (6):

(6) f : <T, <A , P »

T - • < A - • P>

provided that

T is the domain of consecutive time points (or increasing timeintervals, increasing by the flow of time);A is the domain of amounts ("batches") of particles, each time-pointyielding a unique batch; andP is the domain of patches, each time-point, and hence each amount,yielding a unique patch.

The function f is quite similar to the function representing the referents ofnouns like temperature in Montague's system, also termed intensionalobject, in the sense that the time-points are the indices which pickindividual objects from the domains A and P. Thus, at each time-pointthere will be a unique batch of particles and, correspondingly, a uniquepatch on the terminal surface. Due to the introduction of T as the domainof points of time, or simply indices, it is ensured that f produces uniquevalues from its range, as even if the same patch from the terminal area canbe associated with two distinct batches of substance (thus producing athicker, but not larger, layer), these will correspond to distinct moments intime, i.e. indices. For some formal solutions of similar temporal-spatialfunctions, see Verkuyl (1993), Jackendoff (1996) and Krifka (1992),among others. Eventually, there will be a value of f: < T, <A , P »corresponding to D if D = the patch covering the terminal area.

It is precisely the function f which provides the basis for incrementaltreatment of the terminal surface, and, in the present terms, the latter willhave monodeveloper status. It is also the function f which gives rise to the

common intuition about gradual spatial coverage of the terminal surface.We turn shortly to the specific nature of this monodevelopment.

3.3.1. A Preliminary SummarySo far it has been argued and demonstrated that there are two basiccomponents in the situation to which spray can apply, whereby each canindependently serve as the basis for a particular syntactic realization ofthe verb. However, by being related through a function, both participants(i.e. the substance sprayed and the terminal surface) will influence theaspectual interpretation of the alternation constructions, irrespective oftheir syntactic functions. Thus, unambiguous completed values will beattributed only to the constructions where both elements correspond toquantified/definite noun phrases, as defined in the necessary andsufficient condition previously mentioned. It appears that this "duality"of the spray type has caused the proliferation of contrasting opinions, suchas Jackendoff s (1996) claim that only the "original container"-orientedrepresentation matters for the aspectual interpretation of constructionswith spray, or Tenny's inconclusive "grammatical enforcement" of telic(completed, in our terms) interpretations, the latter being directlycontingent on the syntactic realization as direct argument. What is evenmore confusing about such accounts is the mention of "pragmaticfactors5' which, unfortunately, fail any satisfactory formal representation.My aim here has been to show that adequate representation of anyimportant aspect/factor in the meaning of the spray type ought to bepossible (hopefully in a formalized way), and thus may serve as the basisfor predictions concerning both the syntactic realization and the aspectualproperties of the constructions generated.

A related issue is which is the "basic" meaning, or the "canonical"realization of spray. Even though not directly maintained, it has beenimplied that the ejection component and the corresponding realization aresomehow "more basic". In terms of the present approach, this is anunwarranted solution. Moreover, the construction corresponding to theterminal area-oriented representation may be grammatical even if thesubstance element is not overtly realized as a prepositional phrase.Consider the Bulgarian example pruskam lozjata ('spray the vineyards'),or the Norwegian spr0yte kalakeren ('spray the cabbage field'). Likewise,a verb of the same type, Bulgarian seja ('sow'), yields the same syntacticrealization, e.g. (za) seja nivata ('plant the field'). The only indication ofpossible "markedness" of one realization over the other might be the factthat, commonly, the terminal area construction requires an aspectualprefix in Bulgarian. This observation can be misleading, as a perfectiveaspectual prefix is required even for the completed construction with thesubstance expressed as direct object, both following directly from the

10

syntactic level at which perfective processes operate, namely the VP level(cf. Dimitrova-Vulchanova 1996 for an analysis). Thus, it can be claimedthat both syntactic realizations are equally "basic", and that the presenceof what might look like derivational morphology (i.e. morphologymarking that one construction is derived from the other) is aspectualmorphology required by the syntax/Aspect interface rules.

3.3.2. Does Spray Mean ' Cover'?In most analyses of the spray type so far, it has been assumed that the wayin which the terminal area is "affected" is coverage.11 However, thisinterpretation does not exhaust the meaning of spray in English, nor in theother languages we have been considering so far. The existingnominalizations, such as splash (the verbal root splash being close tospray) in English, and pruska ('splash3) in Bulgarian, support a view thatthe result can hardly be described as just covering. More specifically, theonly way we can discern a 'splash' is by perceiving it on the backgroundof the surface, which has not yet been sprayed/splashed. This involvesmore subtle criteria, e.g. of quality of coverage, rather than just spatialcoverage. That is to say, what we can perceive is a patch of a qualitydifferent from that of the background area, not simply "something whichis covered vs something which is not covered". It is difficult to attributethis effect to a specific property of the situation. However, a clue could bethe three-dimensional/and "in-colour" nature of perception. Furthersupport comes from the "extended" uses of spray in e.g. Norwegian andBulgarian, meaning 'apply (some kind of) insecticide9, illustrated in (7)below.

(7) a. praskam lozjataspray the vineyards (Bulgarian)

b. spr0yte kalakerenspray the cabbage field (Norwegian)

It can hardly be maintained that the criterion in the situations denoted in(7) is complete coverage. Rather, one can assume a "sufficiently well-spread application" criterion, thus again bordering on quality, and not justspatial coverage.

Now we turn to the notion of the ante-monodeveloper and how thistransfer from spatial to qualitative monodevelopment can be accountedfor. The growth of the patch of sprayed surface on the terminal area (thewall) has been shown to be related through a function to the portions(batches) of substance particles ejected, which eventually end on theterminal surface. In this sense, the aggregate of substance particles,increasing with each cycle of spraying, can be described as an ante-monodeveloper relative to the monodevelopment of the terminal area.

11

This means that the growing of this aggregate of particles conditions thechange of the terminal surface in terms of quality coverage. Thedifference between the two monodevelopments is that the ante-monodevelopment is relative to (growth in) size, whereas the mono-development of the wall occurs relative to the parameter of qualitycoverage. This change of medium "across" monodevelopments isallowed by the system, as we are dealing with distinct monodeveloperentities (and not, for example, a collection of objects undergoing the samemonodevelopment). As mentioned earlier, eventually, there will be avalue of the function relating the two monodevelopments correspondingto the whole (initial) surface of the terminal area. The same relation canbe assumed between the initial aggregate of particles of substance and thegrowing aggregate of particles ejected. Thus, the latter is an ante-monodeveloper on which the monodevelopment of the former iscontingent. Eventually, the two aggregates (sets) will be equated. Thus,it turns out that the real measure of the completedness of the firstcomponent of the spray situation is the spending of all the originalquantity of substance, whereas the paint as moving object is significantonly in its capacity as ante-monodeveloper. This aspect will beemphasized shortly in amending the necessary and sufficient conditionon the aspectual interpretation of the spray alternation.

4. THE ROLE OF ASPECTUAL MORPHOLOGY, OR HOW CAN'SPRAY THE WALL WITH PAINT' BE REMEDIED?I have argued that there are two entities involved in the incrementalgrowth of the situation type subsumed by the meaning of spray. Thecondition which can be postulated on the unambiguous completedinterpretation of each of the alternation constructions generated by sprayis directly contingent on the semantic representation of the verb, whereboth elements will be represented as monodevelopers related by afunction. The ambiguities which arise concerning the aspectual propertiesof such constructions can be attributed to the different ontologicalproperties of the objects involved. Thus, in English, in the substance-as-DO construction (as in (8a) below), there is an effect arising fromthe characterization of the wall as a delimited (quantized) object,which creates the wrong impression that in this realization type, thecompleted aspectual interpretation depends exclusively on the substance(paint) participant. Indeed, due to the ontological properties of thewall participant, it is rarely the case that it corresponds to a cumu-lative (mass) nominal expression. Thus, a completed interpretation willarise in all cases when the paint is realized as a quantified expression, asin (8a).12

12

(8) a. He sprayed the paint on the wall in an hour/^for an hour.b. He sprayed the wall with paint in an hour/<*>for an hour,c. He sprayed paint on the wall *in an hour/for an hour.

In contrast, in (8b), the aspectual interpretation is open, as only one of theparticipants, the wall, by default (due to its ontological properties), isrealized as a quantified/definite noun phrase. Thus, the construction in(8b) can combine with both an i«»adverbial and a /or-adverbial phrase.With respect to the latter possibility, the situation instantiated by theconstruction in (8b) is similar to the one illustrated in (8c). In bothconstructions, the non-completed aspectual interpretation resides in thefact that the sufficient condition for unambiguous completed interpreta-tion, requiring that both participants be realized as quantified/definitenoun phrases, is not met. There is one big difference, however, between(8b) and (8c): for (8c), "non-completed" is the only aspectualinterpretation available, whereas for (8b), "completed" is also possible.The question now is why the latter interpretation is available at all.

Jackendoff (1996) attributes the possibility for a completed interpreta-tion in the case of (8b) to "pragmatic" factors. In my opinion, the factorsinvolved are primarily linguistic in nature, and reside in what we mightprovisionally call grammatical function prominence. In brief, the lattercan be described as the matching of three distinct factors: the ontologicalproperties of the object referred to by the participant, the type of nominalreference instantiated, and whether or not the relevant participant isrealized as direct object. Thus, in (8b), the completed interpretation isavailable due to the fact that all three factors are matched, because thewall is a non-mass term, and it is realized as a definite direct object. Incontrast, in (8c), there is no such match, due to the fact that paint fails tobe realized as a quantified/definite noun phrase.

In summing up the discussion so far, we can phrase the followingpredictions. What was defined above as a sufficient condition forunambiguous completed interpretation requires that both monodeveloperparticipants in the spray situation type are expressed as definite/quantifiednoun phrases. In all cases when this condition is met, the construction willhave only one aspectual interpretation: a completed one. As for thegrammatical function prominence condition, it applies to the availabilityof completed interpretations, allowing the possibility of other interpreta-tions as well.

If we compare the English data to similar data from the other Germaniclanguages, the situation is close to what we have described in English.Consider German (3a, a'), repeated here as (9).

13

(9) a. Er spriihte die Farbe in einer Stunde/? eine Stunde lang an die Wand.'he sprayed the paint in an hour/for an hour on the wall'

a'. Er bespriihte die Wand in einer Stunde/eine Stunde lang mit Farbe.'he 'be'-sprayed the wall in one hour/for an hour with paint'

It will be noticed that in German, even (9a) can receive interpretationsbetween the completed and non-completed, as demonstrated by thepossibility of combining it with both in einer Stunde and eine Stunde lang.This goes counter to our predictions so far, as both arguments are realizedby definite noun phrases. This will require reconsidering the necessaryand sufficient condition proposed originally as applying to English (andlanguages of the same type). One way of redefining the condition is toremove "definite" as a required specification of noun phrases. That is tosay, only when the respective participants are realized by quantified nounphrases will the construction receive an unambiguous completedinterpretation. This preciseness is necessary in view of the "dual"interpretation of the definite article when combined with mass terms. DieFarbe ('the paint') in (9a) above could be used both ostensively, i.e. assingling out this particular portion of the substance, or as meaning 'all ofthe substance'. It seems that this duality is not specific to English orGerman, but rather is cross-linguistic, quite probably due to the ontologyof this kind of object. If so, only the construction in which paint occurs asa quantified expression (i.e. all the paint, ten gallons of paint, etc.) willreceive unambiguous completed interpretation.

In addition, the German example in (9a) can be accounted for in termsof a difference between English and German in the presence vs absence ofthe progressive form.13 This explains why, in English, he sprayed thepaint on the wall *for an hour is strange. However, consider (10):

(10) a. He was spraying the paint on the wall when I arrived.b. He had been spraying the paint on the wall for an hour, then

suddenly changed his mind.

It turns out that the progressive form in English "suddenly" enablesotherwise completed constructions to receive an interval reading. This iswarranted under an analysis of the syntax/Aspect interface, whichassumes that imperfective aspectual processes (e.g. the progressive inEnglish) operate at a level in syntactic structure higher than perfective(completed) processes (cf. Dimitrova-Vulchanova 1996). It remains to beadded that in German, in the absence of progressive morphology, it is theaspectual adverbial eine Stunde lang which acts as an operator enforcingthe non-completed (imperfective) interpretation.

Another difference between English and German is the absence vspresence of prefigation on the verb in cases like the German in (9b)

14

compared to its English equivalent in (8b). The presence of the prefix be-in German somehow seems to improve the chances of constructions forcompleted aspectual interpretation but not quite. A reference to Slavic(cf. Dimitrova-Vulchanova 1996) reveals that verb prefigation and directobject realization are both systematically related, and sufficient forcompleted aspectual interpretation. What is wrong with German be-1 Aplausible explanation as to why German be- is different from Slavicperfective prefigation resides in the fact that the former is far fromsystematic. Be- does not cover the whole verbal paradigm, and is far fromcomplementary with other prefixes which can apply to other verb classes.Due to the detectivity of be-, it will be suggested that it functionsaspectually only in the alternative syntactic realization of verbs whichspecify only one monodeveloper entity, such as malen ('paint') in (3b, b')above,14 whereas for the spray type, the crucial factor will be therealization of both arguments as quantified expressions.

5. CONCLUSIONIn this paper, I have discussed the problem arising in English with theaspectual interpretation of constructions generated by verbs of the spraytype. Counter to the general assumption that only one entity/argument iscapable of serving as measure for the fulfilment of a situation (cf. Tenny1987, 1994, Krifka 1992, Jackendoff 1996), I have argued the followingpoints:

1. The situation type to which spray can apply is characterized by twoentities subject to a persistent unidirectional change, here calledmonodevelopment;

2. The monodevelopmental processes in which the two entities areinvolved are related through a function;

3. The circumstance in 2. dictates that only syntactic realizations inwhich both entities correspond to quantified noun phrases will receiveunambiguous completed aspectual interpretation. The latter require-ment can be defined as both a necessary and sufficient condition forEnglish and similar languages;

4. For languages, such as English, which rely exclusively on syntax forthe expression of aspectual distinctions, a condition can be formulated,presently dubbed "grammatical function prominence". The latter isdetermined through the match of the ontological properties of theparticipant objects, the nominal expressions to which these objectscorrespond, and their syntactic functions. It is believed that such acondition ensures the correct predictions for the aspectual interpreta-tion of constructions, including ambiguities, at least in the case of theGermanic languages.

15

NOTES1 These functions are not redundant, as will be the case in predicates with iterative

interpretation, where at least a part of the same object x is exposed to at least twodifferent parts of the event e.

2 Essentially, Krifka (1992) is very much in the spirit of Verkuyl's (1972, 1993) notion ofcompositionality.

3 An example Krifka uses is the Czech construction where a perfective prefix on the verb(i.e. counting for a quantized verbal interpretation), in the absence of articles in thislanguage, forces a quantized reading on the nominal expression as well. Note, however,that the relationship between perfective prefixes and the nominal expression functioningas direct object can be explained in terms of a syntax/Aspect interface account (cf.Dimitrova-Vulchanova 1996).

4 The notation <*> means that there exists at least one interpretation when theconstruction is grammatical.

5 This is short for "monotonic development", where monotonic is used in a sense close tothe mathematical notion, with one difference: the current notion does not necessarilyimply homogeneity.

6 Cf. Tinker's (1989) container-oriented (e.g. load, pack) vs final-distributive (e.g. smear,spread) vs path-distributive (e.g. spray, splash) classification, also adopted byJackendoff (1996). Levin (1993) and Tenny (1994) also list a number of distinct groups.

7 In its transitive use.8 Spraying all the substance at once is theoretically possible (cf. Jackendoff 1996 for a

mention of the possibility), and is definitely linguistically attested in the Bulgarianinchoative form prusm ('spray one portion'). It should be noted, however, that the latterform presupposes only spending all the quantity allotted in a particular instance/stage ofspraying.

9 In Krifka's framework, this property of events and objects is covered by the notioncumulative. Thus, objects with non-defined boundaries (i.e. mass objects) arerepresented in terms of the CUM(ulative) predicate. Likewise, event predicates are,by rule, cumulative.

10 A number of points have been alluded to here; for instance, the question of whether theoriginal quantity of substance should be compatible with the size of the terminal area,i.e. the relationship between the domain A and the range P for A -» P. It seems plausiblethat this is left open in the specification of spray, and even if A > P, i.e. if more (batchesof) substance particles go on the same portion of the terminal area, the situation will stillcount as being subsumed by the meaning of spray. Then it can be suggested that thefunction A -+ P is one-to-many with respect to output: input, rather than one-to-one.

11 Provided 'coverage' is meant in an idealized way, such that it can be 2- or 3-dimensional, the latter applying when the layer of sprayed substance gets thicker.

12 This is why it has been (wrongly) assumed that the aspectual value of the construction in(8a) depends entirely on the paint participant (cf. Tenny 1987, 1994, Jackendoff 1996).

13 The form comprising am V-en sein is not considered to be a true equivalent of theEnglish progressive form, due to its defective paradigm and lack of (sufficient)grammaticization. This is reflected in the fact that it represents one of the ways ofexpressing the "interval" ("in progress") perspective on situations.

14 Cf. Dimitrova-Vulchanova (1998) for a discussion of the properties of verbs belongingto this and similar classes.

REFERENCESDimitrova-Vulchanova, M. 1996. Verb Semantics, Diathesis and Aspect. PhD dissertation,

The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M. 1998. A Typology of Measures. In Haukioja, T. (ed.), Pro-

ceedings of the 16th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Turku, Finland: AboAkademi.

Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67, 547-619.

16

Hellan, L. & Dimitrova-Vulchanova, forthcoming. The Sign Mode! of Grammar. Amonograph.

Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Jackendoff, R. 1992. Parts and Boundaries. In Levin, B. & Pinker, S. (eds), Lexical and

Conceptual Semantics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Jackendoff, R. 1996. The Proper Treatment of Measuring Out, Telicity, and Perhaps Even

Quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14, 305-354.Krifka, M. 1992. Thematic Relations as Links between Nominal Reference and Temporal

Constitution. In Sag, I. & Szabolcsi, A. (eds), Lexical Matters. Stanford, CA: Center forthe Study of Language and Information, Leland Stanford Junior University, pp. 29-53.

Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Pinker, S. 1989. Learnability and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Tenny, C. 1987. Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness. PhD dissertation, Massachu-

setts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Tenny, C. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer

Academic Publishers.Verkuyl, H. 1972. On the Compositional Nature of Aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.Verkuyl, H. 1993. A Theory of Aspectuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Verkuyl, H. 1997. Events as Dividuals: Aspectual Composition and Event Semantics.

Utrecht: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS Working Papers 97-004.