2006
DOI: 10.1075/la.94
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Individuals in Time

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
25
0
2

Year Published

2012
2012
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
25
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…For the purpose of clarification, it should be emphasized that the approach presented here only addresses the domain of inner aspect (Travis, 1991;MacDonald, 2006MacDonald, , 2008Arche, 2006;Arsenejević, 2006), also referred to as situation aspect (Smith, 1991) or Aktionsart (Tenny & Pustejovsky, 2000). As opposed to outer aspect, inner aspect is concerned with how a predicate of the VP type describes the internal structure of an event.…”
mentioning
confidence: 97%
“…For the purpose of clarification, it should be emphasized that the approach presented here only addresses the domain of inner aspect (Travis, 1991;MacDonald, 2006MacDonald, , 2008Arche, 2006;Arsenejević, 2006), also referred to as situation aspect (Smith, 1991) or Aktionsart (Tenny & Pustejovsky, 2000). As opposed to outer aspect, inner aspect is concerned with how a predicate of the VP type describes the internal structure of an event.…”
mentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Maienborn (2005a;2005b; demonstrates that both individual level and stage level copular sentences systematically fail diagnostics for the presence of a Davidsonian eventuality variable. Maienborn instead proposes that stage level predication introduces a pragmatic relation with some existing discourse situation, and that this relation is absent with individual level predication (see Higginbotham & Ramchand 1996;Richardson 2001;Arche 2006;Dalmi 2013;Roy 2013 for a range of other alternatives).…”
Section: Predicative Copular Constructionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…pragmatic relation with some existing discourse situation, and that this relation is absent with individual level predication (see Higginbotham & Ramchand 1996;Richardson 2001;Arche 2006;Dalmi 2013;Roy 2013 for a range of other alternatives). Luckily, there is no need to try to settle this controversy here.…”
Section: Predicative Copular Constructionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…See, among others, Stowell (1991), Arche (2006) and Kertz (2006 They contend that deverbal adjectives build, at least in part, their scales using the ingredients provided by Aktionsart to do so. Telic verbs are expected to have a maximal degree (which translates the culmination of the event, 23); atelic verbs would lack it, as they also lack a natural endpoint.…”
Section: (I)mentioning
confidence: 99%