Scalar Structure Underlies Telicity in "Degree Achievements"

So-called “degree achievements” (DAs), such as widen, lengthen, cool, dry, and straighten, have long caused problems for theories of aspectual classification, because they constitute one area in which the traditional Vendler/Dowty system breaks down.1 As first observed in Dowty 1979, these verbs display both telic and atelic properties according to standard diagnostics (see also Abusch 1986). This paper explores and analyzes the specific problems associated with DAs in an effort to better understand the underpinnings of telicity. The aspectual inconsistency of DAs can be illustrated by examining their behavior with respect to several standard tests for (a)telicity. For example, atelic predicates are known to be entailed by their progressive forms, while telic predicates are not (Vendler 1957, Dowty 1979):

[1]  Ken Hale,et al.  Some transitivity alternations in English , 1986 .

[2]  Jen Hay,et al.  The Non-Uniformity of Degree Achievements , 1998 .

[3]  Pier Marco Bertinetto,et al.  An attempt at defining the class of gradual completion verbs , 1995 .

[4]  Randy J. LaPolla,et al.  Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function , 1999 .

[5]  Hotze Rullmann,et al.  Maximality in the semantics of wh -constructions , 1995 .

[6]  Christopher Kennedy.  Comparison and Polar Opposition , 1997 .

[7]  David R. Dowty.  Thematic proto-roles and argument selection , 1991 .

[8]  Christopher Kennedy,et al.  From Event Structure to Scale Structure: Degree Modification in Deverbal Adjectives , 1999 .

[9]  Henk J. Verkuyl,et al.  A theory of aspectuality , 1993 .

[10]  B. Levin.  Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface , 1994 .

[11]  C. Tenny.  Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness , 1987 .

[12]  Carol Lee Tenny,et al.  Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface , 1994 .

[13]  David R. Dowty,et al.  Word Meaning and Montague Grammar , 1979 .

[14]  Petra Hendriks,et al.  Review of C. Kennedy, Projecting the adjective. The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison , 1999 .

[15]  R. Jackendoff.  The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even quantification in english , 1996 .

[16]  Renate Bartsch,et al.  Semantic structures : a study in the relation between semantics and syntax , 1972 .

[17]  Mari Jean Broman Olsen,et al.  A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect , 1997 .

[18]  R. Declerck.  Aspect and the bounded/unbounded (telic/atelic) distinction , 1979 .

[19]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  Thematic Relations as Links between Nominal Reference and Temporal Constitution , 1992 .

[20]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  Nominal Reference, Temporal Constitution and Quantification in Event Semantics , 1989 .

[21]  Pieter A. M. Seuren.  The structure and selection of positive and negative gradable adjectives , 1978 .

[22]  Carol L. Tenny,et al.  How motion verbs are special: The interaction of semantic and pragmatic information in aspectual verb meanings , 1995 .

[23]  Henk J. Verkuyl,et al.  On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects , 1972 .

[24]  Mari Broman Olsen,et al.  The semantics and pragmatics of lexical aspect features , 1994 .

[25]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  The syntax of event structure , 1991, Cognition.

[26]  James D. Mccawley.  Remarks on What Can Cause What , 1976 .

[27]  A. Lehrer.  Markedness and antonymy , 1985, Journal of Linguistics.

[28]  Roumyana Slabakova,et al.  Bulgarian preverbs: aspect in phrase structure , 1997 .

[29]  Arnim von Stechow,et al.  MY REACTION TO CRESSWELL'S, HELLAN'S, HOEKSEMA'S AND SEUREN'S COMMENTS , 1984 .

[30]  A. Stechow.  COMPARING SEMANTIC THEORIES OF COMPARISON , 1984 .