Ewa Rudnicka-Mosiądz
Wrocław University
Our main objective in this paper is to defend the hypothesis that Polish bare singular object NPs are like English singular indefinite ones with respect to their role in the aspectual composition. It has been extensively argued (cf. Krifka 1992, Tenny 1992, Verkuyl 1999, Filip 2000) that English singular indefinite object NPs being quantized, or in Verkuyl’s terms [+Specified Quantity], in short [+SQA] forms transmit the [+SQA] feature to verbal predicates provided those are headed by episodic VPs. In other words, an episodic verb plus a singular indefinite object gives us a telic (quantized) predicate, as illustrated in (1a) below:
(1) a. John *builds/is building a house. telic
b. John sells vacuum cleaners/* a vacuum cleaner. atelic
It is not surprising, then, that, as observed by Krifka et al. (1995), a singular indefinite NP is disallowed from the object position of the present simple verb (cf. (1b), their (66b)). The English present simple tense can never get the episodic reading.
The examination of Polish data reveals the existence of parallel correlations. Although the Polish present tense verb form can get the episodic as well as the habitual interpretation, in contrast to English having two distinct tense forms for either of meanings, sentence (2a) is grammatical only under the former reading of the VP, shown by the English translation using present progressive form. In consequence, the Polish bare singular object NP can be claimed to force the episodic reading of its verb, and, further, the telic reading of the verbal predicate.
2. a. Jan buduje dom. telic
John build-3SG-PRES house-SG
‘John is building a house.’
b. Jan buduje domy. atelic
John build-3SG-PRES house-PL
‘John builds/is building houses.’
Still, a number of additional issues must be given a due account as well. One of them is the interaction of quantized verbal predicates with various types of adverbial modifiers. In the course of the initial research we have learnt that time adverbials overweigh the force of quantized objects transforming episodic telic verbal predicates into habitual atelic ones. However, this effect is not achieved with the addition of manner adverbials. Another problem is posed by the existence of atelic sentences, both English and Polish ones, with singular indefinite or bare singular NPs functioning as objects of non-episodic verbs. Nevertherless, we will be able to prove that they do not constitute a violation to the principles of aspectual composition defended in this paper.
We are also going to pay attention to distributional and interpretational properties of bare mass and plural object NPs, which are non-quantized that is [-SQA] forms, to supply the necessary background for the discussion of singular indefinites and bare singulars. As mass and plural phenomena are concerned, English and Polish also appear to pattern together. This is a rather unexpected result in view of their profound differences, but a highly desirable one for the proponents of the idea of Universal Grammar we belong to.
References:
Filip, H. 2000. "The Quantization Puzzle." In Tenny, C. and Pustejovsky, J. (eds.), Events as Grammatical Objects. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Krifka, M. 1992. "Thematic Relations as Links Between Nominal Reference and Temporal Constitution." In Sag, I. and Szabolci, A. (eds.), Lexical Matters. Stanford, Calif.: Center fro the Study of Language and Information CSLI.
Krifka, M. et al. 1995. "Genericity: an Introduction." In G. Carlson and J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book. Chicago.
Tenny, C. 1992. Aspectual Roles, Modularity, and Acquisition. Ms.
Verkuyl, H.J. 1999.Aspectual Issues. Stanford: CSLI Publications.