| { |
| "paper_id": "Y96-1045", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T13:38:19.376593Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "Danger of Partial Universality", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "In", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Two", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": {}, |
| "email": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Jae-Hak", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Yoon", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": {}, |
| "email": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "Y96-1045", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "Not all empirical facts are treated equally in science; in theorizing, some are weighed more heavily than others. It is often unavoidable and it should not necessarily be avoided. We will present a case where a semantic theory is influenced more by a seemingly universal fact, but in fact accidental among related languages, than by a few significant exceptions in the language in question, thereby failing to capture a meaningful generalization. In particular, we argue that in-adverbials are not a test for telic predicates, as they are popularly claimed to be; we will show that this claim is triggered by the accidental fact that there are two homomorphic in-adverbials in English and their cognates in other languages.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Introduction", |
| "sec_num": "1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Examples like (1)-(4) below are often presented to argue that an adverbial like in an hour can occur with an accomplishment or an achievement, but not with an activity or a stative (cf. Dowty 1979 , Hinrichs 1985 , Krifka 1986 ). (3) and (4) are normally unacceptable; thus, if they mean anything at all, they receive coerced interpretations such that (i) Mary will 'begin' to run after an hour has passed and (ii) Mary will 'begin' to sleep after an hour has passed, respectively. In this case, the activity verb run and the stative sleep have been coerced to inchoatives, a subclass of achievements. Thus, in-adverbials are claimed to serve as a crucial test for telics. This position is also supported by the observation in many European languages that inadverbials and their counterparts are used for telics, but not for atelics (cf. Smith 1991) . For these reasons, a unified semantics for in has been proposed (cf. Dowty 1979 , Hinrichs 1985 , even though they acknowledge some differences in meaning.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 186, |
| "end": 196, |
| "text": "Dowty 1979", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 197, |
| "end": 212, |
| "text": ", Hinrichs 1985", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 213, |
| "end": 226, |
| "text": ", Krifka 1986", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 833, |
| "end": 849, |
| "text": "(cf. Smith 1991)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 921, |
| "end": 931, |
| "text": "Dowty 1979", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 932, |
| "end": 947, |
| "text": ", Hinrichs 1985", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(1) Mary wrote the letter in an hour.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(2)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Mary milli close the door in an hour.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(3) ??Mary will run in an hour.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(4) ??Mary will sleep in an hour.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Comparing the semantic contributions of in an hour in (1) and (2) above, we notice that the adverbial behaves in strikingly different manners depending on whether it modifies accomplishments or achievements. Several differences can be listed as in (5):1 5\u2022 In-adverbials always refer to contiguous times for achievements but they sometimes refer to noncontiguous times for accomplishments.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 A contextually given reference time is required for achievements but is not for accomplishments.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 In-adverbials are upward monotone with respect to accomplishments but not with respect to achievements.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 In-adverbials refer to runtimes, or event times, for accomplishments but for achievements they refer to elapsed times, times from a reference point until the given event occurs.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "For instance, if we compare the sentences in (1) and (6) below, we notice that (a) the one hour in the letter writing does not have to be one continuous hour but the one hour in the leaving has to; (b) in (6) a specific reference point is required to know from what time the elapsing of an hour is being considered, but it is unnecessary for (1); (c) in a situation where Mary actually wrote the letter in 40 minutes, (1) is acceptable, whereas if Mary did leave in 40 minutes, (6) is not readily acceptable. 2 ; (d) the one hour refers to the time spent in writing the letter in (1) but the time before leaving in (6):", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(1) Mary wrote the letter in an hour.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "1 /n-adverbials have two different uses, and these differences are commonly seen between accomplishments and achievements when these adverbials modify them. However, this does not mean that the use of in-adverbials is determined by the predicate they modify.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "2 Dowty (1979:334) suggests that it is bad because of a violation of the Maxim of Quantity. Yet, the point is that the pragmatic principle seems to affect accomplishments and achievements differently in this respect. 6Mary left in an hour. Despite these differences, it is observed in many languages that the same in-adverbials, or their counterparts, are used for both types of telics (cf. Smith 1991:157). Then, a natural question is whether in-adverbials have the same truth conditions with both accomplishments and achievements. If they do, are the truth conditions given above adequate to accommodate the different behavior of achievements? While the same truth conditions are explicitly proposed by Dowty and Hinrichs, most authors are silent on this matter, with the exception of Nerbonne (1984), who acknowledges one of the above-mentioned differences and proposes two different truth conditions for the German preposition in 'in' (see Nerbonne 1984:61-62) . However, all three authors assume that in-adverbials in English and German are compatible only with telics. 3 The difference is that Dowty and Hinrichs propose a unified semantics for English in-adverbials, whereas Nerbonne suggests two different truth conditions for them.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 2, |
| "end": 18, |
| "text": "Dowty (1979:334)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 934, |
| "end": 964, |
| "text": "'in' (see Nerbonne 1984:61-62)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "3 Meaningful. Exceptions However, an example like (7) is found in the literature but not explained, even though it seems to counterexemplify the observation described above that in-adverbials occur only with telics. 4 Note that the following sentences are potentially ambiguous depending on the relative scope of the progressive marker and the adverbial.5 7Mary was running in an hour.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Let us take the more natural reading where the adverbial is considered to have wider scope than the progressive (cf. Dowty 1979:346-347) . In this case, the clause Mary was running is technically stative. Nevertheless, it is not a coerced reading in any way (the unmarked reading is of the stative type). In other words, it doesn't mean that there was a unique interval within a certain hour at which Mary was running is true. Nor does it mean 3Nerbonne suggests that in-adverbials are systematically ambiguous between measuring and 'inchoative' readings. Thus, he asserts that an in-adverbial can appear with any aktionsart to produce an inchoative reading. But, this is the coerced reading Dowty points out (Dowty 1979:335) . Thus, Nerbonne's position is still consistent with Dowty and Hinrichs.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 117, |
| "end": 136, |
| "text": "Dowty 1979:346-347)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 709, |
| "end": 725, |
| "text": "(Dowty 1979:335)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "4 Dowty (1979:346-347) in fact discusses an example of this type. However, he does not explain why a noninchoative reading is possible for atelics.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 2, |
| "end": 22, |
| "text": "Dowty (1979:346-347)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "5 Let us ignore yet another ambiguity in (7), involving the futurate progressive reading.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "that she started running in an hour. This sentence is not given a correct translation using the standard semantics of in-adverbials, as the reader can easily determine. More counterexamples to the claim that in-adverbials appear only with telics are found in (8) and (9). (8) Mary was in bed in three hours. 9Mary was asleep in three hours.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "There seems to be one and only one factor which determines what kind of atelics can be modified by an in-adverbial. Namely, the atelic sentences which can be modified by an in-adverbial can also appear with adverbials such as at noon and when John arrived, whereas those which cannot be are not allowed with adverbials of this type. This contrast is illustrated in (10) and (11). Note that these are adverbials which locate eventualities at a point, or within a very short interval. In this sense, they differ from other locating adverbials like yesterday and during the break, which involve relatively long intervals. Thus, what seems to be at work is that (a) in-adverbials in these ex amples locate events at times and (b) these times are points, or very short intervals, like the time referred to by an adverbial at noon. Assuming this, the differences that in-adverbials demonstrate between achievements and accomplishments are precisely those which in-adverbials display between atelics and accomplishments. For instance, the interval involved in (8) can be described as in (13).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(8) Mary was in bed in three hours. 13\u2022 The three hours has to be contiguous.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 A reference point to measure the three hours has to be provided in the context. Otherwise, it is infelicitous.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 (8) does not entail Mary was in bed in four hours.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 The three hour interval is not that during which Mary was in bed. Rather it is understood as the time that passed before she was in that situation.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Consequently, two uses of in-adverbials are different not between accomplishments and achievements per se, but between accomplishments and the rest of the aktionsarten, a conclusion suggesting that they are different lexical items. Therefore, the in-adverbials in this use can be best treated as locating adverbials to which adverbials like at noon belong. When an appropriate context is given, the in-adverbial in a sentence like (14) can be ambiguous between measuring and locating. Accordingly, the truth conditional definition of in in this use is proposed in (15). Note that t --< Af e reflects the fact that a in-adverbial locates an event within a time which is (a) later than a contextually salient time, via the free variable t, and (b) later than the salient time by the amount of time, M, specified by the given complement temporal noun.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(15) The truth conditions for locating in:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "AMAPAe[P(e) t -< A4-e],", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "where the measured precedence relation -<M is defined as:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "t -/t1 e 3ti [t t i t i e M(t) Vt2 [[t t2 t2 t2 C t1]]", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "As a result, the sentence (6) below will have the truth conditions in (16). While we have observed that in-adverbials usually function as measure adverbials only with accomplishments, the truth conditions in (17) do not exclude the possibility of a measuring in-adverbial modifying achievement events; the conditions exclude only atelics, since they contain the clause reflecting the uniqueness condition. Nevertheless, the proposed truth conditions seem to be appropriate for two reasons.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "First, though achievements are allowed according to the semantics in (17), normally the pragmatic inference disallows them. For instance, the sentence (18) will be infelicitous if the adverbial must be taken to measure the event time. It would be very strange for an event of leaving to last for an hour; thus, this reading is normally dismissed. If it indeed took Mary an hour in leaving, the event is technically considered as an accomplishment. Second, in rare cases achievements can be modified by a measuring inadverbial, if the complement of in denotes an extremely short interval lik\u00e8 one second'. For instance, (19) is acceptable, even though the sentence describes an achievement event. Thus, we need to allow achievements in principle.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(19) Mary disappeared in one second.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Two Uses of I n-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The conclusion that in-adverbials are different in their uses with accomplishments and the other aktionsarten is reinforced by the existence of ey-adverbials in Korean. These adverbials measure the event time of accomplishments but they do not appear with the other aktionsarten. Thus, they precisely correspond to English in-adverbials with respect to accomplishments, but correspondence is riot shown for achievements, activities, or statives: (20)-(23) show these aktionsarten cannot be modified by an ey-adverbial. The sentences in (21)-(23) cannot get coerced inchoative interpretations, either. (20) John-i yukkaywol-ey cip-ul ci-ess-ta. John-nom 6 month-in house-am build-past-dec John built a house in 6 months.' (21) #John-i yukkaywol-ey cenhwaha-ess-ta.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "E y-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": "4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "John-nom 6 month-in call-past-dec (intended)`John called in 6 months.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "E y-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": "4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(22) #John-i sey sikan-ey tali-ess-ta. John-nom 3 hour-in run-past-dec (intended)`John ran/began to run in 3 hours.' (23) #John-i sey sikan-ey cali-ey iss-ess-ta. John-nom 3 hour-in bed-in exist-past-dec (intended) `John was in bed in 3 hours.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "E y-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": "4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Notice that this is consistent with the above conclusion. Namely, accomplishments differ from the other aktionsarten with respect to this temporal adverbial, existence of which is suggested by the different behaviors of in-adverbials exhibited between accomplishments and the other aktionsarten. According to our observation, it would be highly unlikely for any language that a certain measure adverbial just like a in-adverbial modifies either achievements only or accomplishments and states only. \u2022 It may be instructive to try to understand how this difference arises between Korean and English. Two facts seem to be involved. First, accomplishments are different from the other aktionsarten in that they provide a natural end point for a given event which is different from its starting point. Therefore, an accomplishment event has a natural interval to measure. On the other hand, achievements are regarded as having one small interval for their event time, which might be considered as the starting and end point. Activities and states, by definition, do not have identifiable end points. Hence, it follows that it is the most natural and the easiest to measure the event time of an accomplishment event, i.e. it is often unnecessary to measure the event time of an achievement event; it would be not as simple to measure the event time of an activity or a stative. Therefore, it is plausible that there exists some temporal adverbial which measures accomplishments only, e.g. Korean ey-adverbials and English in-adverbials used for accomplishments.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "E y-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": "4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Second, it appears that certain English temporal adverbials contain default information specifying temporal directions, even though the information is not retrievable from its parts. For instance, the adverbials in (24) all locate events at or within certain intervals. Notice that examining the individual lexical items does not readily lead us to conclude that the combinations should mean (a) two years later than now, (b) a month later than Monday, or (c) three hours later than noon. The individual lexical items do not give a clue to why it is later, but not ago/before. On the other hand, Korean does not have this default information about the temporal direction, at least with the adverbials corresponding to (24); the morpheme hwu 'later/after' is required to specify the temporal direction as exemplified in (25). Note that the postposition ey 'in' is optional in this case.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "E y-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": "4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(25) a. cikum-pwuthe inyen hwu.(-ey) now-from 2 year after-i\u01f9 two years from now' b. wolyoil-pwuthe han dal hwu(-ey) monday-from one month after-i\u01f9 a month from Monday' c. cengo-pwuthe sey sikan hwu (-ey) noon-from 3 hour after-i\u01f9 three hours from noon' Likewise, the morpheme cen 'before' is necessary for temporal adverbials locating events within an interval prior to some other interval, though it is also the case in English.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 199, |
| "end": 204, |
| "text": "(-ey)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "E y-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": "4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(26) a. cikum-pwuthe inyen cen(-ey) now-from 2 year before-i\u01f9 two years before now/ago' b. wolyoil-pwuthe han dal cen(-ey) monday-from one month before-i\u01f9 a month before Monday' c. cengo-pwuthe sey sikan cen(-ey) noon-from 3 hour before-i\u01f9 three hours before noon' Given this fact, it seems clear that English in-adverbials occurring in achievements or statives are roughly equivalent to Korean adverbials with hwu-ey, as in (25), which mean 'in x time later'. (27) a. Mary will write a letter in an hour.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "E y-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": "4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "b. Mary will close the door in an hour.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "E y-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": "4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(28) a. Mary will write a letter an hour from now. b. Mary will close the door an hour from now.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "E y-adverbials", |
| "sec_num": "4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In summary, we have come to notice that (a) two uses of in-adverbials are significantly different, (b) two uses of in-adverbials are different not between accomplishments and achievements per se, but between accomplishments and the rest of the aktionsarten, a conclusion suggesting that they are different lexical items.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Conclusion", |
| "sec_num": "5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Accordingly, the question to ask is not whether unified truth conditions should and can be given to in-adverbials in their use with accomplishments and achievements; rather, it is whether unified truth conditions should and can be given to in-adverbials in their use with all aktionsarten. While there are two clearly distinctive functions of in-adverbials, it is unclear whether they involve homonymy or polysemy. We will leave the problem of deciding between the two unresolved.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Conclusion", |
| "sec_num": "5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The formula within the parentheses corresponds to the uniqueness presupposition. To be strict, presuppositional content shouldn't be included as part of truthconditional definition.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [ |
| { |
| "text": " Nerbonne, John. 1984 ", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 1, |
| "end": 21, |
| "text": "Nerbonne, John. 1984", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "annex", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "Word Meaning and Montague Grammar", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "David", |
| "middle": [ |
| "R" |
| ], |
| "last": "Dowty", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1979, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Dowty, David R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF1": { |
| "ref_id": "b1", |
| "title": "A Compositional Semantics for Aktionsarten and NP Reference in English", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Erhard", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Hinrichs", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1985, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Hinrichs, Erhard. 1985. A Compositional Semantics for Aktionsarten and NP Reference in English. Ohio State University dissertation.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF2": { |
| "ref_id": "b2", |
| "title": "Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. Zur Semantik von Massentermen", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Manfred", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Krifka", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1986, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Krifka, Manfred. 1986. Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. Zur Se- mantik von Massentermen, Pluraltermen und Aktionsarten. University of Munich dissertation.", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF0": { |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "10) a. Mary was running at noon/when John arrived. b. Mary was in bed at noon/when John arrived. c. Mary was asleep at noon/when John arrived. (11) a. ??Mary ran at noon/when John arrived. b. ??Mary slept at noon/when John arrived.Notice that the unnatural sentences in (11) can receive coerced interpretations like (12). This fact further suggests that the adverbials at noon and when John arrived are parallel to in-adverbials.(12) a. Mary began to run at noon/when John arrived. b. Mary began to sleep at noon/when John arrived.", |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF1": { |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "John wrote the letter in an hour. (a) The duration of John's writing the letter was within one hour. (b) In an hour (of some reference time), John wrote the letter.", |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "FIGREF2": { |
| "num": null, |
| "text": "Mary left in an hour.(intended)`Mary spent an hour leaving.'", |
| "uris": null, |
| "type_str": "figure" |
| }, |
| "TABREF0": { |
| "text": "On the other hand, (17) is proposed as the truth conditions for in as it appears in a measure adverbial.6 (17) The truth conditions for measuring in:", |
| "num": null, |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>AMAPAe i [P(e i )</td><td colspan=\"2\">3t[Al (t) & e 1 < t</td><td>(Ve 2[[e 2 <</td><td>P(e2)] -+</td></tr><tr><td>e2 = eii)]]</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"5\">Mary left in an hour (i.e., an hour later from some salient time).'</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">(16) 3e[leave(m, e) past(e)</td><td>t \u2022one.hour e]</td><td/></tr></table>", |
| "html": null, |
| "type_str": "table" |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
