States, boundaries and eventiveness: Splitting up the inchoaative states verb class

MANGIALAVORI RASIA, MARÍA EUGENIA; AUSENSI, JOSEP

Conferencia; PTJK2018: Polish Cognitive Linguistics Conference 2018; 2018

Polish Cognitive Linguistics Association

States, boundaries and eventiveness: Splitting the inchoative states verb classMaria Eugenia Mangialavori-Rasia (CONICET) eukenia@gmail.comJosep Ausensi (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) josep.ausensi@upf.eduRecent work on eventiveness shows that an apparently homogeneous class (?states?) actually encompasses two distinct types: D(avidsonian)-states and K(imian)-states (Maienborn 2008 i.a.). They contrast in the involvement (or not) of eventive-like properties and consequent behavior under finer-grained diagnostics. A good example of finer-grained types identified on this basis are inchoative stat(iv)es (e.g. enfadarse ?get angry? Marín&McNally 2011), characterized by involving a left boundary marking the temporal onset of the designated state. Inchoative stat(ive)s, however, have been thus far generally considered a sort of D-state (Choi 2001, Marín 2014).Data from Old Spanish[OS] (12th-17th, extracted from http://parles.upf.edu/llocs/cqp/oldes/) shows that states with a left boundary and no eventiveness are also possible. We submit that two distinct types of ?inchoative states? need to be differentiated, according to the same relevant criteria (presence/absence of eventive-like properties). Specifically, different combinations of estar ?be.LOC?+past participle[PPT] of change of state/location verbs in OS (unproductive/unavailable in Modern Spanish [MS]) yield pure (eventless) states. Key: complete absence of result entailments (OS) contrasts with MS constructions. Widely-used tests (temporal/manner/degree modifiers; Maienborn2008, Rothmayr2009) suggest that OS estar+PPT includes reference to an initial interval at which a proposition φ (state/location) is true, but for this type, the left boundary (targeted by modifiers like desque ?since?) merely amounts to the (onset) of a eventless (stage-level) state, vs. the right boundary entailed in MS constructions (state established as final stage/result of an entailed change-of-state/location; hence including reference transition from ¬φ to φ, introduced by the change-of-state/location PPT). Consequently, these predicates are crucially distinct from: (a)the verb (produced by the PPT); (b)the corresponding MS estar+PPT construction. Namely, we note that:(i) Degree modifiers (mucho(1)) suggest that OS estar+PPT (especially those derived from punctual verbs) have a true K-state reading, with time-span reading allowed if understood as the time frame within which φ (property/situation) applies to the subject (i.e., a stage-level predicate, considered a sort of K-state, Rothmayr 2009). In fact, the meaning coincides with the definition of K-states as abstract objects for the exemplification of a location z during a time t (Maienborn 2005: 47).(ii) Durative adverbials, while predicted to be incompatible with punctual verbs like llegar ?arrive?, OS estar+PPT readily accommodates them, if interpreted in the non-eventive sense described (i). In (1) the modifier expresses that the spatial situation extended for a considerable amount of time, while (2) reinforces φ?s finiteness.(iii) (i)-(ii) are consistent with the observation that instantaneous/punctual locations do not allow time-span adverbials, while OS estar+PPT do. MS equivalents (if allowed) would be interpreted as states established after a transition (?path/preparatory phrase? Brucart 2012) lasting x time. In OS this combination only denotes that the object is found at situation Z during x time (LOCATEDObject/REFERENCEObject(location) coincide for x time, vs. the ?after? reading in MS). The PPT in (1)-(2) does not refer to the event(uality) of reaching a place, but expresses the fact that within X time Y could be found at Z (with llegar used a measure verb to refer to the amount of time that φ (location) held of X).(1) Tres fijosdalgo a otra noble table mucho están llegadosthree hidalgos at another noble table much beLOC.3P arrive.PTCP.3P?Three hidalgos located at another noble table for much time?(14th c., LBG)(2) Fizo lo soterrar ; mientre llegados estauanmade ACC bury while arrive. PTCP.3P beLOC.IMP.3P?He/She had him buried while they were there?(13th c., LBA)Selected references Maienborn, Claudia. 2008. On davidsonian and kimian states. In Ileana Comorovsky & Klaus von Heusinger (eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax, 107-130. Springer, Dordrecht. Marín, Rafael & Louise McNally. 2011. Inchoativity, change of state, and telicity: Evidence from Spanish reflexive psychological verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(2). 467-502. Rothmayr, Antonia. 2009. The structure of stative verbs. John Benjamins Publishing.