Firstpage 3

You might also like

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 1

Grammatical aspect in English1

ELIZABETH A. COWPER

Abstract

This paper proposes a theory of grammatical aspect based on the Davidsonian


event-place e. Eventive sentences are shown to include e, while stative sentences
lack e. Parsons' (1990) arguments for an analogous element in stative sentences
are shown to be incorrect. The appearance of e is shown to be independent of the
choice of verb, transitivity, object case-marking and telicity. It is thus argued to
project independently in the syntax. The interpretation of e has two possible val-
ues: moment and interval, one of which a language chooses as unmarked. These
values correspond roughly to Smith 's (1991) perfective and imperfective viewpoint
aspects. Possible structural evidence from negation for the presence of a syntacti-
cally projecting e is presented.

1. Introduction

This paper proposes a theory of grammatical aspect based on the event-place (e)
originally proposed by Davidson (1967). In section 2, after a short discussion
of the relevant literature, I argue that eventive sentences have an event-denoting
element, while statives (contra Higginbotham 1985 and Parsons 1990), lack such
an element.
Section 3 briefly outlines the assumptions being made about clause structure and
tense. In section 4, the lexical and semantic properties of e are investigated. The
so-called characterizing use of English simple tenses is argued to lack e and thus to
be grammatically stative. The occurrence of e is thus shown to be a property of the
clause independent of the choice of verb. Verbs normally thought of as eventive
can appear without e, while normally stative verbs can appear with e.
I thus propose that e is an independently projecting element in the syntax, e is
shown to have two possible values: MOMENT and INTERVAL. Languages differ
as to which of these settings is unmarked, with English choosing MOMENT as un-
marked and French choosing INTERVAL. These two settings correspond roughly,

The Linguistic Review 16 (1999), 205-226 0167-6318/99/016-0205


©Walter de Gruyter

You might also like