Download View PDF - CiteSeerX

Proceedings of the Edinburgh Linguistics Department Conference '94
pp.
183{193
States, aspect and complex argument structures
Martha G. Robinson
[email protected]
1 Introduction
The aim of this paper is to bring together two areas of investigation in Syntax and Semantics.
On the one hand, the formation of Complex Predicates. This is understood to take place at
the level of Argument Structure (henceforth AS) in the form of a merger process (Rosen 1989,
Maranz 1984). On the other hand, Event Composition (Verkuyl 1989, Pustejovsky 1991), here
interpreted as Semantic Merging. It is investigated how these two areas interact in stative
Complex Predicates. Passives (with auxiliaries SER intrinsic to be and ESTAR contingent to
be) and perfectives (with auxiliary TENER durative to have) in Spanish are taken to form
stative complex predicates. These, however, can be distinguished from an aspectual point of
view. It will be argued that these Complex Predicates undergo a Heavy Merging process. In
passives it can be dened as an argument structure reduction strategy. In contrast, Heavy
Merging in perfective Complex Predicates can be dened as an argument preservation strategy.
In this paper, various denitions for states found in the literature, will be investigated. A
fundamental claim in this paper, is the distinction between Bounded and Unbounded states.
Such a position is not a novel one in the literature. In work like Carlson (1981), Bach (1986),
Pustejovsky (1988) the distinction between dynamic and static states is assumed. However,
the notion of dynamism will not be employed here. Instead, the Individual-Level (IL) vs.
Stage-Level (SL) (Carlson 1977) distinction is applied to the verbal domain. It is claimed
that this distinction is related to boundedness and unboundedness. Bounded and Unbounded
states are treated as primitives for Event Composition. It will be argued that the aspectual
dierences in these stative Complex Predicates can be derived from Event Composition. In
order to conclude, in section 2, a discussion on the relevant data will be provided together with
a brief discussion on the merger process. In section 3, the nature of states is investigated. This
will lead us to nding the relevant primitives to enable the process of Event Composition which
will be discussed in section 4. Finally, some consequences of this process will be discussed.
2 Syntax of Passives and Perfectives as a Merger Process
In this section the syntax of Spanish perfectives and passives is discussed. It is argued that
these structures can be derived in a unied manner at the level of argument structure (AS).
Spanish passives and perfectives are formed periphrastically through the combination of auxiliaries and participles (with object agreement). The ASs of the lexical items involved (i.e.,
auxiliaries and participles) merge together to form one complex AS. This process is otherwise
known as Complex Predicate formation.
2.1 Participles: Passive or Perfective?
It is a common assumption in the generative literature to draw the passive/perfect distinction
from dierent participial entries in the lexicon (references), namely, the passive and perfect
183
184
Martha G. Robinson
participles. In contrast, here a unied account is assumed. It is assumed that participles
are encoded in the F-lexicon as a single unit neither specifying perfectivity nor passive. It
is claimed instead, that participles (according to the distinction drawn in the introduction
between bounded and unbounded states) denote states of the bounded type.
Spanish stative complexes involve the auxiliaries SER (intrinsic to be) ESTAR (contingent to be) TENER (durative to have) and HABER (perfective to have). SER, ESTAR and
TENER combine with participles with object agreement. In contrast, HABER combines with
a participial form lacking (overt) agreement. On the one hand, SER and ESTAR complexes
form passive structures which are distinguished aspectually. Observe the contrast in (1) and
(2).
1
2
3
(1)
El
camino fue
bloqueado
(por el
ejercito).
The-masc.sg path be-past.3.sg block-part.masc.sg by the-masc.sg army.
The path was blocked by the army.
(2)
El
camino esta
bloqueado
(por el
ejercito).
The-masc.sg path be-past.3.sg block-part.masc.sg by the-masc.sg army.
The path is being blocked by the army.
Traditionally (1) is considered to be the process passive, since the reference is to the event
of the path. being blocked. In contrast, (2) is considered to be the perfective passive. The
reference is to the resultant state of the path having been blocked. This aspectual dierence
is brought about by the alternation of the auxiliaries SER and ESTAR. Further discussion of
this aspectual alternation will be provided later. On the other hand, TENER forms what is
considered to be an idiosyncratic perfective with durative connotations. Consider (3) and (4).
(3)
Tiene perdidos
muchos kilos.
Have-3sg loose-part.masc.pl many-masc.pl kilos.
He/She has (already) lost many kilos.
(4)
Tengo vistas
muchas de sus
pelculas.
Have-1sg see-part.fem.pl many-fem.pl of his/her- lms-fem.sg.
I have (already) seen many of his lms.
In both (3) and (4) the reference is to the continuous performance of the action of loosing
weight and the viewing of lms.
As mentioned above, these auxiliaries combine with participles with object agreement.
This type of agreement is assumed to be the marker of syntactic selectional restrictions, since
it is a necessary condition for these participles to be transitive.
4
1 Cann
(1994) assumes a version of binary grammatical lexicon. Functional and cognitive elements are
stored in two separate lexica which do not interact with one another, i.e., the Functional Lexicon and the
Cognitive Lexicon.
2 From a semantic point of view if Event Composition is applied (in the form of adding the aspectual values
of the lexical items involved), the complexes formed with participles can be subdivided into accomplishment
(auxiliaries IR to go and LLEVAR to carry) and stative ( auxiliaries SER, ESTAR, TENER, HABER).
3 Complex predicates involving HABER will only be commented upon briey since this is the auxiliary used
in compound (perfective) tense formation and here it is assumed that this auxiliary is involved in a dierent
type of complex predicate discussed briey later on in this paper.
4 Rather than being a passive marker (Kayne 1987).
185
States, aspect and complex argument structures
Finally, another stative complex is the one involving the auxiliary HABER (perfective to
have) used in compound (past) tense formation in Spanish. The participle it combines with
does not display any agreement . In Robinson (1993) it is assumed that this is an instance of
grammaticalized agreement induced by lack of selectional restrictions.
2.2 Argument Structure Merger
In the literature, the structures generally categorised as Complex Predicates have been
Causatives, Restructuring verb constructions (Rosen 1989) and Light verb constructions
(Grimshaw and Mester 1988). In this paper, the view taken into account concerning Complex
Predicate formation, is the one put forth in Rosen (1989). There, Complex Predicate formation, is dened as taking place at the level of argument structure in the form of a merger
process. Rosen denes the AS merger as the process where two verbs provide two ASs and
the merger merges them together to form one. Every verb provides an <e> (event) role and
this role will be of prime importance in the merger process, since the crucial operation in the
merger is the identication of <e> roles.
As mentioned above, in this paper we assume that Spanish periphrastic passives and perfectives are also formed by a merger process taking place at the level of AS. However, instead
of assuming dierentiated lexical entries for both auxiliaries and participles (as is the general tradition), we assume dierentiated merging processes. In other words, through dierent
merger processes we create dierent Complex Predicates. These merging processes are to be
interpreted as language specic. It is under this assumption that it is possible to preclude a
unied account of periphrastic passives and perfectives in Spanish.
The view is taken that Complex Predicates can be subsumed under two categories: Heavy
Merging and Light Merging. On the one hand, passives and perfectives with object agreeing
participles undergo Heavy Merger. On the other hand, compound tense formation can be
derived as Light merger. The type of participial form (with or without object agreement) is
understood to be a determinant factor for classifying the type of Complex Predicate these
auxiliaries are involved in. This is related to the amount of participants that are allowed to
percolate onto the complex AS. In other words, the lack or presence of selectional restrictions
(related to object agreement) is the crucial factor for determining the complex AS.
Heavy Merger occurs in the case where selectional restrictions apply. The participial form
in this type of dependency displays object agreement. It is this agreement that blocks the
percolation of participants of the participial complement onto the complex AS. Passives and
perfectives undergo a Heavy Merger process. In passives this can be dened as an Argument
Structure reduction strategy and in perfectives as an AS preservation strategy. Following, is
a discussion on how this merger operates.
In the table below are the representations of the ASs of the lexical items involved in the
merger. A distinction between external and internal (direct and indirect) arguments is assumed
(Williams 1980). In this sense, SER and ESTAR license one internal argument. In contrast,
5
6
7
8
5 This is based on the davidsonian
event argument Davidson (1967), Higginbotham (1985), Kratzer (1988).
In this paper, however, this <e> role is not assumed. For further discussion on this matter, the reader is
referred to Robinson (forthcoming)
6 This terminology has been borrowed from Grimshaw & Mester (1988) and Rosen (1989). Here this terminology is applied to dierentiated merger processes rather than to dierentiate lexical items (the assumption
in these papers).
7 This could also be interpreted as a detransivizing operation (Dowty 1994).
8 It is assumed here that SER and ESTAR are unaccusatives (Burzio 1986).
186
Martha G. Robinson
TENER licenses two arguments, an external and an internal one. The transitive participle,
also licenses two arguments (one internal, one external). This is a necessary condition, hence,
the presence of the object agreement marking this restriction.
SER
((x))
ESTAR
TENER
(y(x))
Participle (Object agreement)
(y(x))
Remember how the merger process was dened earlier. The merger process takes two ASs
of two independent lexical items and combines them together to form one. The result, in a
sense, is that arguments of both lexical items are licensed in the complex AS. Heavy Merging
complexes can be divided into intransitive and transitive complexes.
a) Intransitive Merger: The auxiliaries involved are the intransitives SER and ESTAR
((x))
(y(x))
>
((x))
Merging succeeds in a process of identication, where the sole internal argument of the
auxiliary is licensed through the direct internal argument of the participle. The result is an
intransitive complex argument structure. It is in this sense, that Heavy intransitive Merger
is dened as an argument reduction strategy. This characterises an identication structure
(the agreement of the participle and the auxiliary coincide). The remaining external argument
licensed in the grid of the participle is licensed in the form of an (optional) adjunct-argument,
in the sense of Grimshaw (1990).
b) Transitive Merger: The auxiliary involved is the transitive TENER
(y(x))
(y(x))
>
(y(x))
In similar fashion, the internal argument of the transitive auxiliary merges with the internal argument structure of the participle. In contrast, the external argument of the auxiliary
is licensed through the external argument of the participle. The result is a transitive (asymmetric) structure where the agreement of the subject and the agreement of the object belong,
in a sense, to independent domains.
Light Merger, in contrast is dened where no syntactic selectional restrictions apply. The
participial complement allowed in this type of dependency can be of any type (i.e., transitive,
States, aspect and complex argument structures
187
intransitive, etc.). This is marked in the complex through lack of over agreement on the
participle (we assumed earlier that this was a case of grammaticalized agreement). As a
consequence, any argument licensed through the AS of the participle is allowed to percolate
onto the complex AS. The stative auxiliary undergoing Light Merger is HABER. However,
this type of merger will not be discussed here further, since it is not the object of this paper.
In order to sum up, it was argued that the syntax of passives and perfectives in Spanish
can be derived at the level of AS. It has also been argued in this section that the mechanism
for Complex Predicate formation is merger of ASs. The existence of two types of merger
(Heavy and Light Merger) has been noted. Passives and perfectives (participles with object
agreement) in Spanish undergo Heavy Merger. In contrast, compound tense formation would
be categorised as undergoing Light Merger. Section 3 will explore the nature of states and will
investigate the connection between states and the concepts of boundedness and unboundedness.
It will also be illustrated how these concepts relate to other related ideas such as genericity
and existentiality.
3 States and boundedness
The previous section dealt with the syntactic aspects of the formation of Complex Predicates.
In this and the following section (section 4) the semantics of Complex Predicate formation will
be explored. First, in section 3.1 the nature of states will be discussed, since states are the
constitutive parts of the Complex Predicates object of this paper. This will be followed, in
section 3.2, by a brief discussion on the types of states. It is a fundamental claim in this paper
that states can be subsumed under two categories namely bounded and unbounded states.
9
3.1 The nature of states
In this section the denitions for states found in the literature will be taken under scrutiny,
since in the literature on aspectual typology, the stative/non-stative distinction has been the
subject of much research . Great emphasis has been placed in separating states from the
remaining aspectual classes often dened under the generic term of EVENTS. (these include
processes, accomplishments and achievements.) . However, the status of states has never been
dened clearly.
States are commonly dened in the literature, in terms of interval semantics. For instance,
in Allen (1984) the world is divided into both static and dynamic aspects (otherwise the
stative/ non-stative distinction). Static aspects refer to properties, while dynamic aspects
refer to occurrences. He denes stative and dynamic aspects in relation to intervals of time.
Thus, in terms of interval semantics, properties are claimed to hold over intervals of time
(IT), while occurrences change some form of the situation over intervals of time. A similar
characterisation is oered in Parsons (1990) States are characterised as holding over IT in
contrast, events are claimed to culminate over IT. At rst sight, it seems dicult to dene
states in terms of IT like events. IT are dened as a set of moments of time ordered by the
precedence relation Cann (1993). The notion of time progression in the denition of states
and events is a central one (although, intuitively, states cannot involve the same time concept
than events): States do not imply progression of time: States are in time, but they do not
take time (Taylor 1977). In contrast, events seem to imply the progression of time; events take
9 In the literature
generally considered unbounded.
188
Martha G. Robinson
time. According to Tenny (1993) states can have temporal duration, temporal location, but
they lack internal temporal structure. And this lack of internal temporal structure has lead to
the idea that states lack event structure (Tenny 1993, van Voorst 1989, inter alia). But what
is this internal temporal structure if not location and duration ? Unfortunately, this is still
an open question. In connection with this idea, states have often been claimed not to take
place, in contrast with events that happen (van Voorst 1989, Smith 1990). Pustejovsky (1988)
oers one of the more reasonable characterisations of lacking internal temporal structure: the
internal structure of a state is homogeneous, in other words, states consist of a period of
undierentiated moments.
However, going back to the interval theses, why could we not be able to dene states in
terms of MT, the constitutive parts of IT ? It is claimed, that the dierence between events
and states can be dened in terms of IT and MT. On the one hand, events can be dened in
terms of IT, since they are themselves composed out of smaller units. Events are divisible,
i.e., they can be divided into substages of dierent types. They take time (there is a natural
progression inherent to time). In contrast, stative properties correlate with those of a MT. If
states are dened as indivisible units we can only predicate indivisibility over MT not over IT.
Therefore, they are constitutive parts of greater units. States are primitives. Since they are
the smallest unit of time, they cannot be a period of undierentiated moments because as soon
as MT are iterated we have IT. States lack temporal structure, this is they are in time but no
progression is implied. Together with Smith (1990) I assume states to be the simplest of the
situation types. Therefore, although they themselves cannot be decomposed into parts, the
can be part of other events. In sum, states are interpreted as the primitives par excellence,
of the situation types.
It was claimed that states due to their indivisibility (i.e., states cannot be decomposed
into substages like events) and homogeneity showed properties parallel to those of MT rather
than IT. At the same time, it was concluded that states are to be interpreted as the simplest
of the situation types. In the following section, it will be contended that although states are
interpreted as the simplest of the situation types, they do not always show the same properties.
It will be claimed that states can be either bounded or unbounded.
10
3.2 Types of states
In the previous section the nature of states has been dened. Hinging on the idea that states
can be interpreted as nite and innite MT here it will be argued that states can be subdivided
into bounded and unbounded types. This distinction will be a crucial one for the illustration
of aspectual contrasts in periphrastic passives and perfectives.
Following Smith's (1990) train of thought, we know intuitively that in examples like being
tired, being beautiful, being on the table the stative property is not equivalent in all three.
Although the cluster of properties (indivisibility and homogeneity) dened earlier hold for
these states it is still possible to feel that they dier. It is evident that being tired and being
on the table describe the moment where the stative property is more salient. On the other
hand, being beautiful although also a state, seems to dene a more permanent property. A
similar consideration applies to the distinction between Snow is beautiful and The snow is
beautiful. As a result, in this investigation, a distinction between states is assumed. In the
11
10 Pustejovsky
(1988, 1991) is assumed here: accomplishments are formed by two substages: a process and
a state.
11 In these examples, the semantic contrast (permanent vs. accidental) is brought about through the bare
States, aspect and complex argument structures
189
literature this position is not a novel one (although it is not discussed in great depth). Carlson
(1981), Pustejovsky (1988) and Bach (1986) distinguish between dynamic and static states.
However, it does seem bizarre to dene states in terms of dynamics, since events would be
dened in this manner (as seen before in Allen 1984). This notion, therefore, will be dispensed
of. Instead, the Individual-level (IL) and Stage-level (SL) distinction (Carlson 1977, Kratzer
1988) is applied to the verbal domain. This distinction refers to predicates expressing more
inherent and essential sorts of properties and to predicates expressing highly temporary and
accidental properties. This distinction is not used to separate events (commonly assumed to
be SL) from states (commonly assumed to be IL). It is claimed that this distinction applies
at a more universal level. It is related to boundedness and unboundedness. Verbal States,
hence, are not only IL, they can be subsumed under both categories (this being a lexical
property), i.e., IL and SL. In other words, states can either be permanent (unbounded) or
accidental (bounded). This lexical property might not be an obvious one in English, but it is
easily recognised in Spanish. A number of stative verbs in Spanish partition according to this
distinction. Consider the examples below:
12
IL (generic)
SL (existential)
saber (to know)
conocer (to know)
entender (to understand) comprender (to understand)
ver (to see)
mirar (to see)
13
Other clear examples of this bounded/unbounded stative contrast are also SER - ESTAR
(to be) and TENER - HABER (to have) . On the one hand, SER and TENER would
be interpreted as the unbounded pair. This is based on the fact that they have durative
connotations. They are used to refer to permanent properties (possession, origin, inherent
properties of individuals). On the other hand, ESTAR and HABER would be interpreted as
bounded. An interesting fact about this bounded interpretation is that this pair (as opposed
to SER and TENER) appears with locative expressions. An extension of this aspect is that
ESTAR on the one hand, appears to denote existential properties. HABER in contrast, appears
as the perfective (past tense) auxiliary.
In this section it was argued that verbal states partition according to boundedness and
unboundedness. This was seen to be an extension of the generic / existential interpretation
of properties (also related to permanent and accidental properties). In the following section it
will be shown how this distinction is relevant to the stative complex predicates under study.
14
4 Event Composition as Semantic Merger
This section is devoted to the semantics of Complex Predicates. It was assumed earlier that
Complex Predicates undergo Semantic Merging. This process is understood to be equivalent to
Event Composition, where the aspectual class of a verb may be modied by other elements in
15
and denite NP alternation.
12 It is important to note that here boundedness does not necessarily imply culmination. In a sense, it relates
to temporary and accidental properties.
14 In modern Spanish this property is not easily distinguished, because the ussage of HABER is only as an
auxiliary and TENER can be used both as auxiliary and lexical verb. However, in Old Spanish both TENER
and HABER alternate between both functions with semantic subtleties: TENER had durative connotations
and HABER had terminative and inchoative connotations.
15 In the literature this is also called event-type shifting.
190
Martha G. Robinson
the sentence (Mourelatos 1981, Dowty 1979, Verkuyl 1972, 1989). Although, in the literature
Event Composition has been applied to derive aspectual sentential properties, in this paper the
aspectual properties of a complex predicate are derived in similar fashion (i.e., compositionally)
from the interaction of aspectual primitives. It is in this sense, that the aspectual contrasts
between stative passives and perfectives can be derived from Event Composition.
4.1 Complex Predicates as Complex Event Representations
The previous section concluded by assuming that states can be either bounded or unbounded.
Boundedness and unboundedness will constitute the primitives for Event Composition. However, it is assumed that this distinction also correlates with the open and closed intervals theses
(Bennett 1981). Open and closed intervals are dened as the contrast between intervals with
endpoints and intervals without endpoints. Open and closed intervals are represented graphically by open and closed square brackets (][, []). It was seen earlier that Event Composition
refers to how basic event structures interact with other syntactic constituents to form derived
event representations. These derived event representations could also be called Complex Event
Representations. Complex Event Representations are represented in the form of aspectual
templates. Open an closed square brackets constitute the (graphic) primitives standing for
boundedness and unboundedness. Complex Event Representations of stative Complex Predicates are of two types: Heterogeneous and Homogeneous.
16
a) Heterogeneous Complexes: They are formed by unbounded SER and TENER combining
with a bounded participle (this is represented in the template below by the combination
of an open and a closed bracket representing the substages of the complex).
17
]SER[
]ser[
((x))
[part.]
]TENER[
(y(x))
]tener[ [part.]
A consequence of the heterogeneous internal structure is that passive with SER can be
modied by in (en in Spanish) adverbials like in (5), the complex with SER and (6), the
complex with TENER.
18
(5)
16 Remember
El
camino fue bloqueado
por el
ejercito en una hora.
The-masc.sg path was block-part-masc.sg by the-masc.sg army in one hour.
The path was blocked in one hour.
that the last time homogeneity was addressed it was in relation to the indivisible nature of
states. However, homogeneous Event Complexes are dened when the substages (primitives) of the complex
are of the same type, i.e., represented as [[], []] or [][, ][]. In contrast, heterogeneous complexes would be dened
when the substages are of dierent types, i.e., either [][, []] or [[], ][].
17 Note that in section 2.1 it was assumed that participles denote bounded states.
18 In section 2.1 it is mentioned that SER passive refers to the event and that TENER perfective retains
durative connotations, this is reinterpreted reference to the event.
191
States, aspect and complex argument structures
(6)
Tengo vistas
muchas de sus pelculas en dos a~nos.
Have-1sg see-part.fem.pl many-fem.pl of his/her lms in two years.
I have (already) seen many of his lms in two years.
b) Homogeneous Complexes: They are formed by the coocurrence of bounded auxiliaries
ESTAR and HABER and the bounded participles (in the template below this is represented graphically by the combination of two closed brackets representing the substages
of the complex).
19
[ESTAR] ((x))
[estar] [part.]
[HABER]
(y(x))
[haber] [part.]
A consequence of this homogeneous internal structure is that complexes with ESTAR
are naturally modied by for (durante in Spanish) adverbials.
(7)
20
El
camino esta bloqueado
por el
ejercito durante una hora.
The-masc.sg path is block-part-masc.sg by the-masc.sg army for
one hour.
The path is blocked by the army for one hour.
In this section it was contended that it was possible to derive Complex Event Structures
via the application of Event Composition. These complex structures were represented in
the form of templates. The result has been that by combining open and closed intervals
(related to boundedness and unboundedness) it was possible to derive two types of semantic
structures, i.e., homogeneous and heterogeneous. These semantic structures correspond to
the aspectual structures of the stative complex predicates. As a consequence, homogeneous
complexes are modied by for adverbials while heterogeneous complexes are naturally modied
by in adverbials.
5 Conclusion
This paper explored the interaction of syntax and semantics in the formation of Complex
Predicates in Spanish. It was contended that the syntax of these predicated could be derived
at the level of AS in the form of a Merger process. Complex Predicates involving participles
can be subsumed under two categories depending on how the Merger operates, i.e., Heavy
and Light Merger. It was claimed that this mechanism derived complex argument structures.
Simultaneously to the syntactic Merger, it was claimed that semantic merger also was in
operation in the formation of Complex Predicates. Semantic Merger results in Complex Event
19 In
the case of HABER the homogeneous internal structure would prove to be a speculation for the fact
that this auxiliary (as opposed to TENER) is the one used in compound (past) tense formation in Spanish.
However, since the category Aspect becomes intertwined with the category of Tense HABER will not be
discussed further due to the complexity of the matter and the lack of space.
20 Likewise, in section 2.1 it was claimed that ESTAR passive referred to the resultant state rather than the
event.
192
Martha G. Robinson
Structures which are represented in the form of Complex Event Representations (templates).
These Representations were derived from primitives (boundedness and unboundedness) and
subdivided in two categories Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Complexes.
References
Bach, E. 1986: The Algebra of Events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9 (1).
Bennett, M. 1981: Of Tense and Aspect: One Analysis. Syntax and Semantics, Tense and
Aspect, vol. 14.
Burzio, L. 1986: Italian Syntax. D. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Cann, R. 1993: Formal Semantics. An Introduction. Cambridge.
Cann, R. 1994: Homonymy in the Functional Lexicon. ms. University of Edinburgh.
Carlson, G. 1977: Reference to Kinds in English. PhD Thesis, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Carlson J. 1981: Aspect and Quantication. Syntax and Semantics, Tense and Aspect, vol.
14.
Davidson, D 1967: The Logical Form of Action Sentences. in Nicholas Rescher, ed., The
Logic of Decision nad Action, University of Pittsburgh Press.
Dowty, D. 1994: Adjunct-to Argument Reanalysis in a Model of Grammar Growth. Paper
presented at Centre for Cognitive Science. University of Edinburgh.
Dowty, D. 1979: Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. D. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Grimshaw, J. 1990: Argument Structure. MIT Press.
Grimshaw, J. & Mester, A. 1988: Light Verbs and -Marking. Linguistic Inquiry. 19
Higginbotham, J. 1985: On Semantics. Linguistic Inquiry. 16
Kayne, R. (undated): Thematic and Case-Assigning Properties of Past Participles. m.s.,
MIT.
Kratzer, A. 1988: Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates. In E. Bach, A.Kratzer and
B. Partee, eds., Papers on Quantication, NSF Report, grant BNS 8719999, University
of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Maranz, A. 1984: On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Mourelatos 1981: Events, Processes and States. Syntax and Semantics, Tense and Aspect,
vol. 14.
Pustejovsky, J. 1988: Event Semantic Structure. ms., Brandeis University.
Pustejovsky, J. 1991: The Syntax of Event Structure. Cognition.
States, aspect and complex argument structures
193
Robinson, M.G. 1993a: Participles in Complex Predicates. Paper presented at the Para-
metric Variation Workshop. Centre for Cognitive Science. University of Edinburgh, 25
May 1993.
Rosen, S.T. 1989c: Argument Structure and Complex Predicates. PhD Thesis Brandeis
University.
Smith, C. : 1990: The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht, Kluwer.
Taylor, B. 1977: Tense and Continuity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1.
Tenny, C. 1992: The Aspectual Interface Hypothesis. Lexical Matters. Ivan A. Sag and
Anna Szabolcsi, eds.
Verkuyl, H. 1972: On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Verkuyl, H. 1989: Aspectual Classes and Aspectual Composition. Linguistics and Philosophy.
Voorst, J. van : 1989: Event Structure. Current Issues in Linguistics.
Williams, E. 1980: Predication Linguistic Inquiry 11.