- Email: [email protected]
The progressive in English and Japanese
~
Language Sciences,Vol. 18, Nos 1-2, pp. 265-275, 1996
Pergamon
Copyright© 1996 ElsevierScienceLtd Printed in Great Britain. All fightsreserved 0388-0001/96 $15.00 + 0.00 S0388-0001(96)00019-8
~IE PROGRESSIVE.IN ENGLISHAND JAPANESE
TAKASHI SUZUKI Info~ation-Technology Promotion Agency 1 38, Shibakooen 3 choose, Minatoku, Tokyo 105, Japan
~'~qTRACT ~lis paper atteupts to characterize the s i u i l a r i t y and difference between the progressive in English and Japanese. The s i n i l a r i t y between them is that progressive sentences in both languages are used to describe a state which is perceived as the realization of one of the state types which form the event type represented by embedded sentences. The essential difference between them is that the state described by an English progressive sentence must be a dynamic state, while this constraint does not apply to a Japapanese progressive sentence. ~/is is our claim
~Y WORDS Event; State; Event Type; State Type; Dynamic State; Progressive; Gestalt
1. LWRODUC'FON I As is pointed out in the literature (e.g, 0gihara (1985)), while English progressive sentence can be used only to describe process, Japanese progressive sentence can be used not only to describe process, but also to describe result state. It should be noticed here that we use the term "progressive" for Japanese in referring to the "-teiru" construction. For example, ~nile (la) can be translated to (2a), an English progressive sentence, the meaning of (lb) is quite different from that of (2b). It should be noticed that in (lb), / t / in the phonological representation of "-teirn" is voice& and as a result, / t e i r u / b e e o n e /deiru/. However, we ignore this fact througout this paper and call these voiced elenents as "-teiru", even though their actual phonological representations are /deiru/: (1) a_ Kare-wa hasit-tei-ru. he Top run-PROG-PRESEI¢I" b. Sono-hito-wa sin-dei-ru. the-man-Top d ie-PR~-PRESEIfl" (2) a_ He is running. b. The san is dying.
265
266
TAKASHI SUZUKI Rather, the meaning of (lb) is more like that of (3): (3) The uan is dead. Our claim in this paper is that this difference between the progressive in both languages can be explained by assuming that. both process and r e s u l t s t a t e are a kind of s t a t e and regarding process as dynamic s t a t e - s t a t e which require the e f f o r t from inside or outside to continue. The overall organization of t h i s paper is as f o l i o s : in section two, we will introduce the ration of events and s t a t e s into our ontology. In section three, we will present a model. In section four, we will discuss seuantic properties of the progressive in Japanese. In section five, we will characterize the leaning of the progressive in English. Section six is our conc 1us ion.
2. EVENTS,~I) STATES In t h i s section, we introduce the notion of events and s t a t e s into our ontology. First, we chracterize events and s t a t e s hazed on Galton (1984). Second, we argue that events can be viewed as the g e s t a l t s consisting of some states. 1bird, we argue that individual events and individual s t a t e s should be distiguished frou event types and s t a t e types.
2. 1. C h a r ~ t e r i z a t i o n s of Events and States In t h i s subsection, we consider Galton's(1984) e h r a c t e r i z a t i o n of events and states. I t should be noticed that Galton's use of the term "state" is a broader notion than that of most linguists or philosophers - Verkuyl (1972) or Comrie (1976), for example. See table 1 below: Table 1. galton (1984) Yerkuyl (1972)
Comrie (1976}
state
state
state process -
event
event
dynamic situation
imperfective perfective
This difference cones from Galton's treatment of the s i t u a t i o n s described by an English progressive sentence. Galton argues that the s i t u a t i o n described by an English progressive sentence is included in his state. Hereafter, we use the tern "event" or "state" in 6 a l t o n ' s (1984) sense. According to Galton, the evaluation of (4a, b), s t a t e - d e s c r i b i n g sentences, one point of t i m is enough, but the evaluation of (5), an event-describing sentence, needs an interval which contains some points of time: (4) ~ He is running. b. He is dead. (5) He runs. According to Galton, s t a t e s are primarily to be associated with utments, and events with intervals, h s t a t e way obtain in an interval only by v i r t u e of its obtaining at sole or a l l Ioments of the interval. According to 6alton, (6) describes a s t a t e and night be understood as saying that Jane was engaged in swiming at the exact moment of lidday. According to Galton,
THE PROGRESSIVE IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE although i t is quite natural to understand that Jane was also swiming i m e d i a t e l y before and a f t e r midday, (6) is true even i f she was swiming at the exact moment of midday and was not swiming at any other moments: (6) Jane was swiming at midday. On the other hand (7) can only be understood as describing a event ~ i c h oecured in an interval which contains the exact moment of noon: (7) Jane had a swim at midday. According to Galton, this difference between event-describing sentences and s t a t e - d e s c r i b i n g sentences cones from whether they involve change of s t a t e or not. States are e s s e n t i a l l y unchanging. That is, s t a t e s are homogeneous. On the other hand, events e s s e n t i a l l y involve change. Galton argues that although what the subject denotes in the s t a t e described by (8) is changing with respect to i t s position, the s t a t e i t s e l f is not changing: (8) I t is moving. It may be worth mentioning, in passing, that t h i s difference is related to a problem with the present tense discussed below. As Galton pointed out, i f a sentence describing a s t a t e is used in the present tense, the sentence describes a s t a t e obtaining at the present moment, while i f a sentece describing an event is used in the present tense, the sentence is not interpreted as describing an event which occurs at the present moment but rather understood as describing a s i t u a t i o n in a recent future. Consider (9) below. (9b) also has a habitual reading. However, we ignore this p o s s i b i l i t y here: I'm running. b. [ run.
(9) ~
This difference can be explained as follows: Since s t a t e s can be associated with moments, they night be associated with the present moment. On the other hand, since events cannot be associated with moments, they cannot be associated with the present moment. If a sentence which describes an event is used in the present tense, the only p o s s i b i l i t y available is to associate an interval which contains the present u e n t to that event, and consequently, the sentence would have to be interpreted as describing a s i t u a t i o n in a recent future.
2. 2. The Internal Structure of Event We claim that every event can be viwed as a g e s t a l t which consists of two or three states. It should be noticed that here we use the t e n t " g e s t a l t " in Lakoff's (1977) sense. According to Lakoff, g e s t a l t is a whole that we hmnan beings find l o r e basic than the parts. According to (]alton, every event contains at l e a s t two s t a t e s - a s t a t e which obtains before the change and a s t a t e which obtains a f t e r the change. Henceforth, we c a l l these two s t a t e s an i n i t i a l s t a t e and a f i n a l state, respectively. And some events contain a s t a t e of change, in adition to these two states. In t h i s respect, we distinguish two classes of events. One is those events which contain a s t a t e of change, in between an i n i t i a l s t a t e and a final state, and the other is those events which do not contain a s t a t e of change. See (lO) below: (10) m
b.
initial state
s t a t e of change
initial state
i final I state
final state
267
268
TAKASHI SUZUKI An example of events that might be classified as (10a) is the event described by (11): (11) A banana ripens. According to Galton, we cannot draw a clear line between the bananaes that have ripen and the bananaes that have not ripen yet, and consequently, the event described by (11) is perceived to contain a gradual change. This gradual change corresponds to a state of change in our frameworZ /in example of events that might be classified as (10b) is the event described by (12): (12) The car starts moving. In (12), the change is recognized by the observation of the difference between the i n i t i a l state and the final state. We examine how Yendler's (1%7) classification of verbs can be considered in our franeworZ Yendler c l a i m that verbs can be classified into four groups listed in (13). Although Vendler himself said that this is a classification of verbs, we regard these classes as those of situations: (13) m state b. accomplishment c. activity achievement Examples of these classes are shown in (14) below. (14a-d) correspond to (13a d), respectively: (14) ~ He was dead. b. He made a chair. c. He ran. He reached to the top of the lountain. We consider that (13a) is contained in state in Galton's sense, (1)b) corresponds to (10a), and both (13c) and (13d) correspond to (10b). At f i r s t sight, i t might be odd to suppose that (13c) is correspond to (10b), but i t is right. We think that the difference between (13c) and (13d) is that while the final states of those events which are classified as (13d) represent a static situation, the final state of those events which are classified as (13c) represent soee kinds of motion. For example, the event described by (14c) will be considered to consist of the i n i t i a l state where the person denoted by "he" is not in running activity and the final state where "he" is in running activity. We show two kinds of evidence to support this view. First. as Vendler noted, while the progressive forn of activity verbs entail their non progressive counterparts, the progressive form of accouplishuent verbs do not have such an entailuent. For example, while (15a) entails (14c), (15h) does not entail (14b): (15) ~ He was running. b. Be was uaking a chair. We consider here that (15a) describes a final state and (15b) describes a state of change, respectively. Therefore, i t is quite natural for (15a) to entail (14c), because the state described by (15a) can be assuned to obtain after the event described by (14c) has oecurreck On the other hand, (15b) does not entai 1 (14b), because the state described by (15b) is not perceived as obtaining after the event described by (14b) has occurred. Second, as is pointed out in Courie (1976), while (lOa) entails (16b), its present perfect counterpart, (17a), does not entail (17b): (16) a. John is running. b. John has run.
THE PROGRESSIVE. IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
269
(17) m John is m k i n g a chair. b. John has mde a chair. This is not a problem for our explanation. Since (16a) can describe a f i n a l state, i t is natural to e n t a i l (16b), a present p e r f e c t sentence. On the other han< since (17a) describes a state of change, (17a) does not e n t a i l (17o).
2. 3. Event Types and State Types According to Galton (1984), individual events zust be distinguished from event types. Individual events are associated with a p a r t i c u l a r interval of t i m . This is i l l u s t r a t e d by (18) below: (18) the swim that Jane had on her twentieth birthday. On the other hand, event types are not associated with any interval of t i m . i l l u s t r a t e d by (19a c) below:
This is
(19) a. Jane had a swim b. Jane has a swim c. Jane will have a swiL As long as (19a) is not put in a p a r t i c u l a r context and is not associated with a p a r t i c u l a r interval, (19a) can be used to describe any s i t u a t i o n s where Jane is in her a c t i v i t y of swiming before the utterance t i m . Thus, (19a) can be used to describe not only the swil that Jane had on her twentieth birthday, but also the swit that Jane had on her nineteenth birthday, and so on, when she is twenty one years ol& In other words, (19a) i t s e l f can be viewed as denoting a set of events where Jane is in her a c t i v i t y of swiming. Besides that, (1%, c) also can be used to describe s i t u a t i o n s where Jane is in her a c t i v i t y of swiming. We characterize event type as a s e t of events which are considered to be described by the sane sentence, when we ignoring tense. Galton claimed that such d i s t i n c t i o n is not applicable to states. However, we argue t h a t we also have to distinguish between individual s t a t e s and s t a t e types. Consider (20a-c) below: (20) m Jane was making a chair. b. Jane is making a chair. e. Jane will be mking a chair. (20a-c) can be used to describe not only Jane's a c t i v i t y on her nineteenth birthday but also twentieth birghday, and so forth. And the objects denoted by "a chair" in each s i t u a t i o n m y be different. Thus, these observations suggest that individual s t a t e s and s t a t e types should be distinguished, too. We consider that s e m n t i c a l l y , tense has a scope over the s e m n t i c object which denote event type or s t a t e type. R i l e in English, the s e m n t i c scope of tense does not correspond to the surface form, i t does correspond to the surface form in Japanese.
3. FORMALTHEORY In t h i s section, we present a model which r e f l e c t s the considerations above. We d i f i n e the lodel M as a t u p i l e ( U , S, E,, W, ~ {0, 1}, g, E > -
U is a s e t of individuals. S - {s, s', s", . . . } is a s e t of s t a t e s and E = {e, e', e", . . . } is a set of events. Lattice t h e o r e t i c operations defined in Link (19~7)
270
TAKASHI SUZUKI are applied to the elements of these sets. We c a l l the subsets of S as s t a t e type and use , ' , ~", and so forth to represent them. And we mention to the subsets of E as event type and use ¢ 4', 4", and so on to represent theL I {i, i ' , 1", ... } is a set of intervals. I t should be noticed that intervals are sets of time. Homents are mximum intervals as defined in Kamp (1979). '< ' is a precedence r e l a t i o n on I. W
{w, w', w", . . . }
is a set of possible worlds.
- R = { Agent, Theme, etc. } is a s e t of theta roles. Theta roles are functions from S U E to U. For further detail, see I)o~y (1989). {0, 1} is a set of truth values. {0, 1}.
' g ' is an assignment function from (S U E) x I x W to
E - {~i, ~o, ~f} is a set of functions from pow(E) to pow(S).~i assigns an event type to a set of s t a t e s which share s u f f i c i e n t l y many properties with the i n i t i a l s t a t e s of a l l the events which belong to a given event type. ~¢ and ~f are characterized in the same way. We further define soue r e l a t e d m t t e r s as below. Definition 1 1. ~-S obtains at iEl in ~W i f f 3 s [ s ~ h g() 1] 2. ~-E occurs at iEI in ~W i f f !te[er~ ^ g() = 1] 4. THE PROGRESSI~ IN JAPANESE Ks is argued in Ogihara (19~5), s t r i c t l y speaking, the t e n t "progressive" is a sisnoner for the " - t e i r u " construction in Japanese. However, we use the t e n t "progressive" in r e f e r r i n g to i t for three reasons: the f i r s t is for the sake of convenience as well as for a lack of a b e t t e r tertt The second is that i t already has been a t r a d i t i o n in the l i t e r a t u r e to use the t e n t "progressive" for the " t e i r u " construction and we follow this tradition. The t h i r d is that as is demonstrated above, sone " - t e i r u " sentences do have a progressive i n t e r p r e t a t i o n in a certain case. We claiu that " teiru'" is an operator which changes event type into s t a t e type. We define the truth conditions for the progressive in Japanese as below. Truth conditions for the progressive in Japanese PROG-j(4) obtains at i in w i f f e i t h e r ~o (4) or ~f (4) obtains at i in w In the d e f i n i t i o n above, PROG-j(4) is the set~mtic object corresponding to the tenseless font of " - t e i r u " sentence and ' 4 ' is the s e m n t i c object corresponding to the sentence esbedded in the " - t e i r u " sentence. For example, in (21) below, (21a) is a tensed font of a " t e i r u " sentence and (21b) is a tenseless font. hnd (21c) can be viewed as the sentence enbedded in (21a) or (21b): (21) m John-ga ohiru-wo t a b e - t e i - r u . John-NOM lunch-hCC eat-PROG-PRESENT 'John is eating a lunch.' b. John-ga ohiru-wo t a b e - t e i c. John-ga ohiru-wo tabsIn light of t h i s definition, the interpretation of a " - t e i r u " sentence t i g h t be e i t h e r a s t a t e of change or a f i n a l s t a t e depending on the given context. We consider that ¥oshikawa's (1976) well known c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the meanings of " - t e i r n " sentence is a c t u a l l y a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n for
THE PROGRESSIVE IN ENGLISH ANI) JAPANESE the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of " t e i r u " sentences. Yoshikawa c l a s s i f i e d the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of " - t e i r u " sentences as in (22) below: (22) ~ doosa no keezoku 'continuation' b. kekka-no jootai 'result state' c. tannaru jootai ' l i t . ~ere s t a t e ' kurikaesi 'iteration' e. 'keiken' 'experience' Examples of these classes are shown in (23) below. (23a, b) correspond to (22a). And (23c-f) correspond to (22b-e), r e s p e c t i v e l y : (23)
b.
c.
e.
f.
John ga h a s i t - t e i - r u . JOhn-NOM run PROG-PRESENT 'John is running.' John-ga isu-wo tsnkut tei-ru. John-NOM chair ACC make-PROG-PRESI/NT 'John is making a chair. ' Sono hito-wa sin-dei ru. that man TOP die-PROG-PRESENT 'The man is dead.' Michi-ga aagat tei ru. road-NOM wind PROG-PRESEICF 'The road is winding.' Kare-wa aainiehi h a s i t - t e i - r u . he-TOP everyday run-PROG-PRESENT 'lie is running everyday." Watashi wa aoo sono hon wo yon-dei-ru. I TOP already that-book-hCC read-PROG-PRESE/Cr 'I have already read the booZ '
The reason why only (22a) has two exaaples in (23) is that we consider that (22a) has two subclasses. One corresponds to a s t a t e of change, and the other corresponds to a final state. We think that (23a) is used to describe a final s t a t e and (23b) is used to describe a s t a t e of change in normal settings. As we discussed in 2.2, we admit a final s t a t e which is characterized by the motion of sosething and we think that (23a) is used to describe such a state. The s t a t e s which can be described by (23c, f) correspond to a f i n a l s t a t e of an event. (23d) is also used to describe a f i n a l s t a t e of an event, but the s t a t e s which can be described by (23d) do not have a corresponding event ~hich can occur in the real world, because roads can not be bent. In section three, we s t i p u l a t e d ~e as a function which assigns an event type to a set of s t a t e s which share s u f f i c i e n t l y aany properties with the f i n a l s t a t e s of a l l the events which belong to a given event type. Therefore, (23d) does not have to have a corresponding event which occurs in the real worl& Let us now discuss how we can solve the inperfective paradox. To solve t h i s paradox has been a touchstone of any semantic analyses of the progressive in English. We think that the sane proble, also a r i s e when we discuss the neaning of the progressive in Japanese. Oowty (1979) s t a t e s that although the progressive form of the accoaplishaent sentences e n t a i l s that soneone is engaged in a certain a c t i v i t y , i t does not e n t a i l that he coupletes the a c t i v i t y . For exaaple, in (24), although t h i s sentence e n t a i l s that Max was engaged in a c r o s s i n g - t h e - s t r e e t a c t i v i t y , i t does not entail that he reached to the goal of the crossing a c t i v i t y a sidewalk, and so on. (24) can be a true statenent even i f he interrupted by souething and cannot complete
271
272
TAKASHI SUZUKI
his crossing a c t i v i t y : (24) Max-ga dooro wo oodan s i - t e i - r u . Max-NOM street-ACC crossing-do-PROG-PRESE~T 'Max is crossing the s t r e e t . ' According to I)owty, (24) is true i f and only i f Max completes his crossing a c t i v i t y in a world which is exactly like the given world up to the t i m in question and in which the future course of events after this t i m develops in ways most col~atible with the past course of events. However, as is discussed in Vlach (1981), it is hard to characterize such a worl& Vlach says that when Max is crossing the street, but unknown to h i t a bus traveling at thirty ailes per hour is an inch away from h i t t i n g Max, the uost natural course of event would be that Max is h i t by bus and he will never cross the street. However, (24) l i g h t be a true statement describing the situation. We can solve this problem by assu~ing that not only the range of ~e, but also that of ~o contains states which are not regarded as the state of change of any events in E , the set of events in a given model, as long as they share sufficiently aany properties with the states of change of all the events which belong to a given event type. Then, even when i t is impossible for Max to complete his crossing activity, (24) can be a true statement, i f the state which is very similar to the states of change of Max's crossing event which can occur in a certain worlC The analysis of (23e) needs some considerations. We think that (23e) is used to describe a state which corresponds to a state of change of a couplex event. Following Link (1987) and Bach (1986), we admit complex events which aade f r o l soue siaple events by a l a t t i c e theoretic operation. It should be noticed that such a couplex event is also an individual event. (23e) represents a state type whose aembers are such complex events whose occurrences are accomplished by the occurrences of every subevent of them We think that in (23e), the scope of "aainichi (everyday)" does not range over the whole sentence, but the embedded sentence. "mainichi'" requires that subevents of a complex event to continuously occur at least once per a day in a contextually determined periock (23e) is used to describe the state of change of such a coMPlex evenL This state of change is characterized by a continuous occurrence of its subevents. Although the situation described by (23e) consists of aany occurrences of subevents, the situation i t s e l f is not changing with respect that running events countinuously occurring througout this situation. It is worth aentioning here that as Vendler points out in 7endler (19 67), generic sentences like (25) describe a kind of state - generic state in Vendler's terL In Carlson (1989), Carlson also says that (25) is a state-describing sentence: (25) The sun rises in the east. This observation ~ y suggest that continuous occurrences of events can be regarded as a state. (23e) is perceived to be a true statement, i f the individual denoted by "kate (he)" continuously runs at least once in a day during a certain period which lasts sufficiently long.
5. THE P R ~ S I V E
IN ENGLISH
As we illustrated in the introduction of this paper, while the progressive in Japanese can be used to describe both process and result state, the progressive in English can be used only to describe process. This xeans that the progressive in English is more r e s t r i c t e d in its use than the progressive in Japanese. We argue that this difference between the progressive in both languages can be explained i f we think that a lore severe seuantic r e s t r i c t i o n is iuposed on the progressive in English than on the progressive in Japanese. We assume that the neaning of the progressive in English is almost the sale as that of the progressive in Japanese. However, a nore severe semntic r e s t r i c t i o n is iuposed on the progressive in English than on the progressive in Japanese. The r e s t r i c t i o n is that the state
'1't tE PROGRESSIVE IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
described by an English progressive sentence must be a dynamic state, while a Japanese progressive sentence is not subject to such a restriction. Although Galton (1984) claimed that every state described by an English progressive sentence is a state of change, we do not agree with Galton and think that o such a restriction, and can be used to describe some final states, as long as the state is a dynamic state. We show some evidences which support this v i e ~ First, as we mentioned in 2.2, while (26a), a c t i v i t y in the progressive form, en t a i ls (26b), its present perfect conterpart, (27a), accouplisMmnt in the progressive form does not entail (27b): (26)((16)) ~ b. (27)(-(17)) ~ b.
John John John John
is running. has run. is mking a chair. has mxte a chair.
In this respect, (26a) is s i n i l a r to (28a) below, a sentence describes a result state. Here, (28a) entails (28b), a sentence in the present perfect: (28)
~ John is d e a l b. John has dead.
Second, (29a, b) obviously describe a final state. (29a) describes a state after 'John' sat down and (2%) describes a state after 'Mary' stood up. It is worth montioning here that as is pointed out in Uweda & Murasaki (19~2), in Korean, the continuous aspect mrker " go io-" is never attached to "soda (stand)" nor "anlda ( s i t ) " : (29) a_ John is sitting. a_ ~lary is standing. Although our position d i f f e r s from Comrie (1976) in the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of situations (see table 1 in 2. 1), we owe much to Comrie's chracterization of dynamic situations. We characterize dynamic states as states which require the e f f o r t from inside or outside to continue. In other mrcLs, dynamic states will only continue i f they are continually subject to a new input of energy. And we characterize non dynamic states as states which require no e f f o r t to continue. It is worth mentioning here that although Courie originally invent the notion of dynamic situation to divide state from perfective or inperfective, al l the examples of dynamic situations he l i s t s are English progressive sentences. Vendler (1967) says that inchoative verbs like "starts" are achievenent and the final state of those verbs represents sole kind of activity. We think that his use of a c t i v i t y here is almost the same as dyna$ic state. Consider (30) below: (30) The car starts moving. To c l a r i f y the notion of dynamic and non-dynamic state, we shall now examine how we can account for the observation in the introduction of this paper. As pointed out in the introduction, (31a), a Japanese progressive sentence, can be translated to (32a), an English progressive sentence. However, (31b) cannot be so translated to an English progressive sentence. Rather, (31b) will be translated to a sentence like (32b): (31)(-(1)) a. Kare-wa hasit tei-ru. he-Top run-PROG-PRESENT b. Sono-hito-wa sin-dei-ru. the-nan-Top die-PROG-PRESENT (32) a. He is running. b. The tan is dead.
273
274
TAKASHI SUZUKI We can accout for this observation as follows: Since the continuation of an a c t i v i t y of running needs the agent's effort, the state described by (31a) is a dynamic state and (31a) can be translated to an English progressive sentence. On the other hand, since "sono hito" has already been dead and cannot be considered to be a source of energy, and since in the situation described by (31b), we cannot find any other elements that night be considered to be a source of energy, the state described by (31b) is a non-dynamic state and (31b) cannot be translated to a progressive sentence in English. Since the state of change is a state which represents a transition from a i n i t i a l state to a final state, and this transition would need some effort, every state of change is a dynamic state. Examples of an English progressive sentence describing a state of change are (33) below: (33) ~ He is making a chair. b. He is dying. As is pointed out by Comrie, the progressive can be used to represent i t e r a t i v e meaning as in (34) below. As we discussed in section four, (34~ b) describe states of change: (34) a_ He is coughing. b. John is swimming every day. For a final state, we need further considerations. We think that not a l l final states are dynamic states. Some final states are not dynamic states and are not described by a progressive sentence in English. We examine how our c r i t e r i a for dynamic state works in the case of final state. We consider here I)o~y's (1979) c r i t e r i a for the a c t i v i t y class. We assume that Dowty's c r i t e r i a for the a c t i v i t y class can be viewed as c r i t e r i a for a final state to be a dynamic state, l)o~y argued that to be c l a s s i f i e d in the a c t i v i t y class, the given sentence should meet one of the c r i t e r i ~ The f i r s t c r it e r i o n is that the given sentence is agentive. Examples of sentences that meet this condition are (35) below: (35) ~ He is walking. k He is speaking. c. John is ignoring Mary. The second cri t erio n is that the given sentence should describe an a c t i v i t y in a physical sense. To f i t this criterion, the given sentence should be used to describe either a change of position or an internal movement that has a visual, audible, or t a c t i l e consequence. An example of sentences that describe a change of position is (36) below: (36) The rock is rolling down the path. Examples of sentences that describe an internal movement that has a visual, audible or t a b t i l e consequence are (37) below: (37) a_ The refrigerator is running, b. The stereo is blaring. We regard these c r i t e r i a as conditions for the given sentence to describe a dynamic state. In (35), the states described by (35a-c) are continued by the g e n t s ' effort. Therefore, the states described by (35a-c) are dynamic states. In (36), since i t is natural to assume that rock's rolling is caused by some effects from outside, the gravitation or someone's pushing, for example, the state described by (37) is a dynamic state. /rod in (37), since refrigerators or stereos need an input of energy to work, the states described by (37) are dynamic states.
TI-~ PROGRESSIVE IN ENGLISIt AND JAPANESE 6. CONCLUSION In this paper, we made an attenpt to characterize the s i l i l a r i t y and difference between progressive sentence in Japanese and English. The s i t i l a r i t y between them is that in both languages, progressive sentences are used to describe a state which is perceived as the realization of one of the state types which form the event type represented by the sentence eubedded in those sentences. In this sense, the progressive operators in both English (be -ing) and Japanese ( t e i r u ) can be characterized as stativizer. The essential difference between the progressive in English and Japanese is that the state described by an English progressive sentence must be a dynamic state, while this constraint does not apply to a Japanese p r o g r e s s ire sentence.
~PERENCES Bach, E (1986) "The Algebra of Events, " Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 5 16. Comrie, Ik (1976) Aspect. Cambridge University Press. Oowty, n. (1979) Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Reidel, Dordrecht. Dowty, O. (1989) "On the SeLantic Content of the Notion of 'Thematic Role'." In Chierchia, G., Partee, tk and Turner, P~ (eds.) Properties, Types and Meaning II. Kluwer, l)ordrecht, 69 129. G~lton, & (1984) The Logic of Aspect. Clarendon, Oxfor~L Kamp, l{ (1979) "Events, Instants and Temporal Reference." in B~uerle, P,, Egli, U. and yon Stechow, /k (eds.) Semantics from Different Points of View. Springer, Berlin, 376-417. La.koff, G. (1977) "Linguistic Gestalts. " CLS 13, 236 287. Iandman, F. (1992) "The Progressive." Natural Language Semntics 1, 1-32. Linl~ C~ (1987) "Algebraic Semantics of Event Structures." In Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, ~ and Veltmn, F. (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth Amsterdam Colloquium April 13-16 1987, University of Amsterdam, 243-262. 0gihara, T. (1985) Aspectual Properties of Verbs in Japanese and English. ms. Parsons, T. (1989) "The Progressive in English." Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 213 41. Takahashi, T. (1985) Gendai Nihongo I)ooshi no Asupekuto to Tensn. Syuee Syuppan, Tokyo. Tera~ura, 1~ (1984)Nihongo no shintakusu to Ini II. Kurosio, Tokyo. Uneda, I~ and Murasaki, E (1982) "Gendai Choosengo. " in Teramura, It et al (eds.)Gaikokugo to no Taisyoo II. Meiji Syoin, Tokyo, 40-60. Vendler, 7, (1967) Linguistics in Philosophy. Cornell University Press, Ithac~ Verkuyl, tt (1972) On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects. Reidel, Dordrecht. Vlach, F. (1981) "The Semantics of the Progressive. " in Tedeschi, P. and Zacnen, & (eds.) (1981) Syntax and Senantics 14. Academic Press, New York, 271 92. Yoshikawa, T. (1976) "'Gendai Nihongo nooshi no Asupekuto no Kenkyuu. " in Kindaichi, tL (ecL) (1976) Nihongo Dooshi no Asupekuto. Mngi Syoboo, Tokyo, 155 227.
LSC
18/I-2--J
275
Language Sciences,Vol. 18, Nos 1-2, pp. 265-275, 1996
Pergamon
Copyright© 1996 ElsevierScienceLtd Printed in Great Britain. All fightsreserved 0388-0001/96 $15.00 + 0.00 S0388-0001(96)00019-8
~IE PROGRESSIVE.IN ENGLISHAND JAPANESE
TAKASHI SUZUKI Info~ation-Technology Promotion Agency 1 38, Shibakooen 3 choose, Minatoku, Tokyo 105, Japan
~'~qTRACT ~lis paper atteupts to characterize the s i u i l a r i t y and difference between the progressive in English and Japanese. The s i n i l a r i t y between them is that progressive sentences in both languages are used to describe a state which is perceived as the realization of one of the state types which form the event type represented by embedded sentences. The essential difference between them is that the state described by an English progressive sentence must be a dynamic state, while this constraint does not apply to a Japapanese progressive sentence. ~/is is our claim
~Y WORDS Event; State; Event Type; State Type; Dynamic State; Progressive; Gestalt
1. LWRODUC'FON I As is pointed out in the literature (e.g, 0gihara (1985)), while English progressive sentence can be used only to describe process, Japanese progressive sentence can be used not only to describe process, but also to describe result state. It should be noticed here that we use the term "progressive" for Japanese in referring to the "-teiru" construction. For example, ~nile (la) can be translated to (2a), an English progressive sentence, the meaning of (lb) is quite different from that of (2b). It should be noticed that in (lb), / t / in the phonological representation of "-teirn" is voice& and as a result, / t e i r u / b e e o n e /deiru/. However, we ignore this fact througout this paper and call these voiced elenents as "-teiru", even though their actual phonological representations are /deiru/: (1) a_ Kare-wa hasit-tei-ru. he Top run-PROG-PRESEI¢I" b. Sono-hito-wa sin-dei-ru. the-man-Top d ie-PR~-PRESEIfl" (2) a_ He is running. b. The san is dying.
265
266
TAKASHI SUZUKI Rather, the meaning of (lb) is more like that of (3): (3) The uan is dead. Our claim in this paper is that this difference between the progressive in both languages can be explained by assuming that. both process and r e s u l t s t a t e are a kind of s t a t e and regarding process as dynamic s t a t e - s t a t e which require the e f f o r t from inside or outside to continue. The overall organization of t h i s paper is as f o l i o s : in section two, we will introduce the ration of events and s t a t e s into our ontology. In section three, we will present a model. In section four, we will discuss seuantic properties of the progressive in Japanese. In section five, we will characterize the leaning of the progressive in English. Section six is our conc 1us ion.
2. EVENTS,~I) STATES In t h i s section, we introduce the notion of events and s t a t e s into our ontology. First, we chracterize events and s t a t e s hazed on Galton (1984). Second, we argue that events can be viewed as the g e s t a l t s consisting of some states. 1bird, we argue that individual events and individual s t a t e s should be distiguished frou event types and s t a t e types.
2. 1. C h a r ~ t e r i z a t i o n s of Events and States In t h i s subsection, we consider Galton's(1984) e h r a c t e r i z a t i o n of events and states. I t should be noticed that Galton's use of the term "state" is a broader notion than that of most linguists or philosophers - Verkuyl (1972) or Comrie (1976), for example. See table 1 below: Table 1. galton (1984) Yerkuyl (1972)
Comrie (1976}
state
state
state process -
event
event
dynamic situation
imperfective perfective
This difference cones from Galton's treatment of the s i t u a t i o n s described by an English progressive sentence. Galton argues that the s i t u a t i o n described by an English progressive sentence is included in his state. Hereafter, we use the tern "event" or "state" in 6 a l t o n ' s (1984) sense. According to Galton, the evaluation of (4a, b), s t a t e - d e s c r i b i n g sentences, one point of t i m is enough, but the evaluation of (5), an event-describing sentence, needs an interval which contains some points of time: (4) ~ He is running. b. He is dead. (5) He runs. According to Galton, s t a t e s are primarily to be associated with utments, and events with intervals, h s t a t e way obtain in an interval only by v i r t u e of its obtaining at sole or a l l Ioments of the interval. According to 6alton, (6) describes a s t a t e and night be understood as saying that Jane was engaged in swiming at the exact moment of lidday. According to Galton,
THE PROGRESSIVE IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE although i t is quite natural to understand that Jane was also swiming i m e d i a t e l y before and a f t e r midday, (6) is true even i f she was swiming at the exact moment of midday and was not swiming at any other moments: (6) Jane was swiming at midday. On the other hand (7) can only be understood as describing a event ~ i c h oecured in an interval which contains the exact moment of noon: (7) Jane had a swim at midday. According to Galton, this difference between event-describing sentences and s t a t e - d e s c r i b i n g sentences cones from whether they involve change of s t a t e or not. States are e s s e n t i a l l y unchanging. That is, s t a t e s are homogeneous. On the other hand, events e s s e n t i a l l y involve change. Galton argues that although what the subject denotes in the s t a t e described by (8) is changing with respect to i t s position, the s t a t e i t s e l f is not changing: (8) I t is moving. It may be worth mentioning, in passing, that t h i s difference is related to a problem with the present tense discussed below. As Galton pointed out, i f a sentence describing a s t a t e is used in the present tense, the sentence describes a s t a t e obtaining at the present moment, while i f a sentece describing an event is used in the present tense, the sentence is not interpreted as describing an event which occurs at the present moment but rather understood as describing a s i t u a t i o n in a recent future. Consider (9) below. (9b) also has a habitual reading. However, we ignore this p o s s i b i l i t y here: I'm running. b. [ run.
(9) ~
This difference can be explained as follows: Since s t a t e s can be associated with moments, they night be associated with the present moment. On the other hand, since events cannot be associated with moments, they cannot be associated with the present moment. If a sentence which describes an event is used in the present tense, the only p o s s i b i l i t y available is to associate an interval which contains the present u e n t to that event, and consequently, the sentence would have to be interpreted as describing a s i t u a t i o n in a recent future.
2. 2. The Internal Structure of Event We claim that every event can be viwed as a g e s t a l t which consists of two or three states. It should be noticed that here we use the t e n t " g e s t a l t " in Lakoff's (1977) sense. According to Lakoff, g e s t a l t is a whole that we hmnan beings find l o r e basic than the parts. According to (]alton, every event contains at l e a s t two s t a t e s - a s t a t e which obtains before the change and a s t a t e which obtains a f t e r the change. Henceforth, we c a l l these two s t a t e s an i n i t i a l s t a t e and a f i n a l state, respectively. And some events contain a s t a t e of change, in adition to these two states. In t h i s respect, we distinguish two classes of events. One is those events which contain a s t a t e of change, in between an i n i t i a l s t a t e and a final state, and the other is those events which do not contain a s t a t e of change. See (lO) below: (10) m
b.
initial state
s t a t e of change
initial state
i final I state
final state
267
268
TAKASHI SUZUKI An example of events that might be classified as (10a) is the event described by (11): (11) A banana ripens. According to Galton, we cannot draw a clear line between the bananaes that have ripen and the bananaes that have not ripen yet, and consequently, the event described by (11) is perceived to contain a gradual change. This gradual change corresponds to a state of change in our frameworZ /in example of events that might be classified as (10b) is the event described by (12): (12) The car starts moving. In (12), the change is recognized by the observation of the difference between the i n i t i a l state and the final state. We examine how Yendler's (1%7) classification of verbs can be considered in our franeworZ Yendler c l a i m that verbs can be classified into four groups listed in (13). Although Vendler himself said that this is a classification of verbs, we regard these classes as those of situations: (13) m state b. accomplishment c. activity achievement Examples of these classes are shown in (14) below. (14a-d) correspond to (13a d), respectively: (14) ~ He was dead. b. He made a chair. c. He ran. He reached to the top of the lountain. We consider that (13a) is contained in state in Galton's sense, (1)b) corresponds to (10a), and both (13c) and (13d) correspond to (10b). At f i r s t sight, i t might be odd to suppose that (13c) is correspond to (10b), but i t is right. We think that the difference between (13c) and (13d) is that while the final states of those events which are classified as (13d) represent a static situation, the final state of those events which are classified as (13c) represent soee kinds of motion. For example, the event described by (14c) will be considered to consist of the i n i t i a l state where the person denoted by "he" is not in running activity and the final state where "he" is in running activity. We show two kinds of evidence to support this view. First. as Vendler noted, while the progressive forn of activity verbs entail their non progressive counterparts, the progressive form of accouplishuent verbs do not have such an entailuent. For example, while (15a) entails (14c), (15h) does not entail (14b): (15) ~ He was running. b. Be was uaking a chair. We consider here that (15a) describes a final state and (15b) describes a state of change, respectively. Therefore, i t is quite natural for (15a) to entail (14c), because the state described by (15a) can be assuned to obtain after the event described by (14c) has oecurreck On the other hand, (15b) does not entai 1 (14b), because the state described by (15b) is not perceived as obtaining after the event described by (14b) has occurred. Second, as is pointed out in Courie (1976), while (lOa) entails (16b), its present perfect counterpart, (17a), does not entail (17b): (16) a. John is running. b. John has run.
THE PROGRESSIVE. IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
269
(17) m John is m k i n g a chair. b. John has mde a chair. This is not a problem for our explanation. Since (16a) can describe a f i n a l state, i t is natural to e n t a i l (16b), a present p e r f e c t sentence. On the other han< since (17a) describes a state of change, (17a) does not e n t a i l (17o).
2. 3. Event Types and State Types According to Galton (1984), individual events zust be distinguished from event types. Individual events are associated with a p a r t i c u l a r interval of t i m . This is i l l u s t r a t e d by (18) below: (18) the swim that Jane had on her twentieth birthday. On the other hand, event types are not associated with any interval of t i m . i l l u s t r a t e d by (19a c) below:
This is
(19) a. Jane had a swim b. Jane has a swim c. Jane will have a swiL As long as (19a) is not put in a p a r t i c u l a r context and is not associated with a p a r t i c u l a r interval, (19a) can be used to describe any s i t u a t i o n s where Jane is in her a c t i v i t y of swiming before the utterance t i m . Thus, (19a) can be used to describe not only the swil that Jane had on her twentieth birthday, but also the swit that Jane had on her nineteenth birthday, and so on, when she is twenty one years ol& In other words, (19a) i t s e l f can be viewed as denoting a set of events where Jane is in her a c t i v i t y of swiming. Besides that, (1%, c) also can be used to describe s i t u a t i o n s where Jane is in her a c t i v i t y of swiming. We characterize event type as a s e t of events which are considered to be described by the sane sentence, when we ignoring tense. Galton claimed that such d i s t i n c t i o n is not applicable to states. However, we argue t h a t we also have to distinguish between individual s t a t e s and s t a t e types. Consider (20a-c) below: (20) m Jane was making a chair. b. Jane is making a chair. e. Jane will be mking a chair. (20a-c) can be used to describe not only Jane's a c t i v i t y on her nineteenth birthday but also twentieth birghday, and so forth. And the objects denoted by "a chair" in each s i t u a t i o n m y be different. Thus, these observations suggest that individual s t a t e s and s t a t e types should be distinguished, too. We consider that s e m n t i c a l l y , tense has a scope over the s e m n t i c object which denote event type or s t a t e type. R i l e in English, the s e m n t i c scope of tense does not correspond to the surface form, i t does correspond to the surface form in Japanese.
3. FORMALTHEORY In t h i s section, we present a model which r e f l e c t s the considerations above. We d i f i n e the lodel M as a t u p i l e ( U , S, E,
U is a s e t of individuals. S - {s, s', s", . . . } is a s e t of s t a t e s and E = {e, e', e", . . . } is a set of events. Lattice t h e o r e t i c operations defined in Link (19~7)
270
TAKASHI SUZUKI are applied to the elements of these sets. We c a l l the subsets of S as s t a t e type and use , ' , ~", and so forth to represent them. And we mention to the subsets of E as event type and use ¢ 4', 4", and so on to represent theL I {i, i ' , 1", ... } is a set of intervals. I t should be noticed that intervals are sets of time. Homents are mximum intervals as defined in Kamp (1979). '< ' is a precedence r e l a t i o n on I. W
{w, w', w", . . . }
is a set of possible worlds.
- R = { Agent, Theme, etc. } is a s e t of theta roles. Theta roles are functions from S U E to U. For further detail, see I)o~y (1989). {0, 1} is a set of truth values. {0, 1}.
' g ' is an assignment function from (S U E) x I x W to
E - {~i, ~o, ~f} is a set of functions from pow(E) to pow(S).~i assigns an event type to a set of s t a t e s which share s u f f i c i e n t l y many properties with the i n i t i a l s t a t e s of a l l the events which belong to a given event type. ~¢ and ~f are characterized in the same way. We further define soue r e l a t e d m t t e r s as below. Definition 1 1. ~-S obtains at iEl in ~W i f f 3 s [ s ~ h g(
THE PROGRESSIVE IN ENGLISH ANI) JAPANESE the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of " t e i r u " sentences. Yoshikawa c l a s s i f i e d the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of " - t e i r u " sentences as in (22) below: (22) ~ doosa no keezoku 'continuation' b. kekka-no jootai 'result state' c. tannaru jootai ' l i t . ~ere s t a t e ' kurikaesi 'iteration' e. 'keiken' 'experience' Examples of these classes are shown in (23) below. (23a, b) correspond to (22a). And (23c-f) correspond to (22b-e), r e s p e c t i v e l y : (23)
b.
c.
e.
f.
John ga h a s i t - t e i - r u . JOhn-NOM run PROG-PRESENT 'John is running.' John-ga isu-wo tsnkut tei-ru. John-NOM chair ACC make-PROG-PRESI/NT 'John is making a chair. ' Sono hito-wa sin-dei ru. that man TOP die-PROG-PRESENT 'The man is dead.' Michi-ga aagat tei ru. road-NOM wind PROG-PRESEICF 'The road is winding.' Kare-wa aainiehi h a s i t - t e i - r u . he-TOP everyday run-PROG-PRESENT 'lie is running everyday." Watashi wa aoo sono hon wo yon-dei-ru. I TOP already that-book-hCC read-PROG-PRESE/Cr 'I have already read the booZ '
The reason why only (22a) has two exaaples in (23) is that we consider that (22a) has two subclasses. One corresponds to a s t a t e of change, and the other corresponds to a final state. We think that (23a) is used to describe a final s t a t e and (23b) is used to describe a s t a t e of change in normal settings. As we discussed in 2.2, we admit a final s t a t e which is characterized by the motion of sosething and we think that (23a) is used to describe such a state. The s t a t e s which can be described by (23c, f) correspond to a f i n a l s t a t e of an event. (23d) is also used to describe a f i n a l s t a t e of an event, but the s t a t e s which can be described by (23d) do not have a corresponding event ~hich can occur in the real world, because roads can not be bent. In section three, we s t i p u l a t e d ~e as a function which assigns an event type to a set of s t a t e s which share s u f f i c i e n t l y aany properties with the f i n a l s t a t e s of a l l the events which belong to a given event type. Therefore, (23d) does not have to have a corresponding event which occurs in the real worl& Let us now discuss how we can solve the inperfective paradox. To solve t h i s paradox has been a touchstone of any semantic analyses of the progressive in English. We think that the sane proble, also a r i s e when we discuss the neaning of the progressive in Japanese. Oowty (1979) s t a t e s that although the progressive form of the accoaplishaent sentences e n t a i l s that soneone is engaged in a certain a c t i v i t y , i t does not e n t a i l that he coupletes the a c t i v i t y . For exaaple, in (24), although t h i s sentence e n t a i l s that Max was engaged in a c r o s s i n g - t h e - s t r e e t a c t i v i t y , i t does not entail that he reached to the goal of the crossing a c t i v i t y a sidewalk, and so on. (24) can be a true statenent even i f he interrupted by souething and cannot complete
271
272
TAKASHI SUZUKI
his crossing a c t i v i t y : (24) Max-ga dooro wo oodan s i - t e i - r u . Max-NOM street-ACC crossing-do-PROG-PRESE~T 'Max is crossing the s t r e e t . ' According to I)owty, (24) is true i f and only i f Max completes his crossing a c t i v i t y in a world which is exactly like the given world up to the t i m in question and in which the future course of events after this t i m develops in ways most col~atible with the past course of events. However, as is discussed in Vlach (1981), it is hard to characterize such a worl& Vlach says that when Max is crossing the street, but unknown to h i t a bus traveling at thirty ailes per hour is an inch away from h i t t i n g Max, the uost natural course of event would be that Max is h i t by bus and he will never cross the street. However, (24) l i g h t be a true statement describing the situation. We can solve this problem by assu~ing that not only the range of ~e, but also that of ~o contains states which are not regarded as the state of change of any events in E , the set of events in a given model, as long as they share sufficiently aany properties with the states of change of all the events which belong to a given event type. Then, even when i t is impossible for Max to complete his crossing activity, (24) can be a true statement, i f the state which is very similar to the states of change of Max's crossing event which can occur in a certain worlC The analysis of (23e) needs some considerations. We think that (23e) is used to describe a state which corresponds to a state of change of a couplex event. Following Link (1987) and Bach (1986), we admit complex events which aade f r o l soue siaple events by a l a t t i c e theoretic operation. It should be noticed that such a couplex event is also an individual event. (23e) represents a state type whose aembers are such complex events whose occurrences are accomplished by the occurrences of every subevent of them We think that in (23e), the scope of "aainichi (everyday)" does not range over the whole sentence, but the embedded sentence. "mainichi'" requires that subevents of a complex event to continuously occur at least once per a day in a contextually determined periock (23e) is used to describe the state of change of such a coMPlex evenL This state of change is characterized by a continuous occurrence of its subevents. Although the situation described by (23e) consists of aany occurrences of subevents, the situation i t s e l f is not changing with respect that running events countinuously occurring througout this situation. It is worth aentioning here that as Vendler points out in 7endler (19 67), generic sentences like (25) describe a kind of state - generic state in Vendler's terL In Carlson (1989), Carlson also says that (25) is a state-describing sentence: (25) The sun rises in the east. This observation ~ y suggest that continuous occurrences of events can be regarded as a state. (23e) is perceived to be a true statement, i f the individual denoted by "kate (he)" continuously runs at least once in a day during a certain period which lasts sufficiently long.
5. THE P R ~ S I V E
IN ENGLISH
As we illustrated in the introduction of this paper, while the progressive in Japanese can be used to describe both process and result state, the progressive in English can be used only to describe process. This xeans that the progressive in English is more r e s t r i c t e d in its use than the progressive in Japanese. We argue that this difference between the progressive in both languages can be explained i f we think that a lore severe seuantic r e s t r i c t i o n is iuposed on the progressive in English than on the progressive in Japanese. We assume that the neaning of the progressive in English is almost the sale as that of the progressive in Japanese. However, a nore severe semntic r e s t r i c t i o n is iuposed on the progressive in English than on the progressive in Japanese. The r e s t r i c t i o n is that the state
'1't tE PROGRESSIVE IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE
described by an English progressive sentence must be a dynamic state, while a Japanese progressive sentence is not subject to such a restriction. Although Galton (1984) claimed that every state described by an English progressive sentence is a state of change, we do not agree with Galton and think that o such a restriction, and can be used to describe some final states, as long as the state is a dynamic state. We show some evidences which support this v i e ~ First, as we mentioned in 2.2, while (26a), a c t i v i t y in the progressive form, en t a i ls (26b), its present perfect conterpart, (27a), accouplisMmnt in the progressive form does not entail (27b): (26)((16)) ~ b. (27)(-(17)) ~ b.
John John John John
is running. has run. is mking a chair. has mxte a chair.
In this respect, (26a) is s i n i l a r to (28a) below, a sentence describes a result state. Here, (28a) entails (28b), a sentence in the present perfect: (28)
~ John is d e a l b. John has dead.
Second, (29a, b) obviously describe a final state. (29a) describes a state after 'John' sat down and (2%) describes a state after 'Mary' stood up. It is worth montioning here that as is pointed out in Uweda & Murasaki (19~2), in Korean, the continuous aspect mrker " go io-" is never attached to "soda (stand)" nor "anlda ( s i t ) " : (29) a_ John is sitting. a_ ~lary is standing. Although our position d i f f e r s from Comrie (1976) in the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of situations (see table 1 in 2. 1), we owe much to Comrie's chracterization of dynamic situations. We characterize dynamic states as states which require the e f f o r t from inside or outside to continue. In other mrcLs, dynamic states will only continue i f they are continually subject to a new input of energy. And we characterize non dynamic states as states which require no e f f o r t to continue. It is worth mentioning here that although Courie originally invent the notion of dynamic situation to divide state from perfective or inperfective, al l the examples of dynamic situations he l i s t s are English progressive sentences. Vendler (1967) says that inchoative verbs like "starts" are achievenent and the final state of those verbs represents sole kind of activity. We think that his use of a c t i v i t y here is almost the same as dyna$ic state. Consider (30) below: (30) The car starts moving. To c l a r i f y the notion of dynamic and non-dynamic state, we shall now examine how we can account for the observation in the introduction of this paper. As pointed out in the introduction, (31a), a Japanese progressive sentence, can be translated to (32a), an English progressive sentence. However, (31b) cannot be so translated to an English progressive sentence. Rather, (31b) will be translated to a sentence like (32b): (31)(-(1)) a. Kare-wa hasit tei-ru. he-Top run-PROG-PRESENT b. Sono-hito-wa sin-dei-ru. the-nan-Top die-PROG-PRESENT (32) a. He is running. b. The tan is dead.
273
274
TAKASHI SUZUKI We can accout for this observation as follows: Since the continuation of an a c t i v i t y of running needs the agent's effort, the state described by (31a) is a dynamic state and (31a) can be translated to an English progressive sentence. On the other hand, since "sono hito" has already been dead and cannot be considered to be a source of energy, and since in the situation described by (31b), we cannot find any other elements that night be considered to be a source of energy, the state described by (31b) is a non-dynamic state and (31b) cannot be translated to a progressive sentence in English. Since the state of change is a state which represents a transition from a i n i t i a l state to a final state, and this transition would need some effort, every state of change is a dynamic state. Examples of an English progressive sentence describing a state of change are (33) below: (33) ~ He is making a chair. b. He is dying. As is pointed out by Comrie, the progressive can be used to represent i t e r a t i v e meaning as in (34) below. As we discussed in section four, (34~ b) describe states of change: (34) a_ He is coughing. b. John is swimming every day. For a final state, we need further considerations. We think that not a l l final states are dynamic states. Some final states are not dynamic states and are not described by a progressive sentence in English. We examine how our c r i t e r i a for dynamic state works in the case of final state. We consider here I)o~y's (1979) c r i t e r i a for the a c t i v i t y class. We assume that Dowty's c r i t e r i a for the a c t i v i t y class can be viewed as c r i t e r i a for a final state to be a dynamic state, l)o~y argued that to be c l a s s i f i e d in the a c t i v i t y class, the given sentence should meet one of the c r i t e r i ~ The f i r s t c r it e r i o n is that the given sentence is agentive. Examples of sentences that meet this condition are (35) below: (35) ~ He is walking. k He is speaking. c. John is ignoring Mary. The second cri t erio n is that the given sentence should describe an a c t i v i t y in a physical sense. To f i t this criterion, the given sentence should be used to describe either a change of position or an internal movement that has a visual, audible, or t a c t i l e consequence. An example of sentences that describe a change of position is (36) below: (36) The rock is rolling down the path. Examples of sentences that describe an internal movement that has a visual, audible or t a b t i l e consequence are (37) below: (37) a_ The refrigerator is running, b. The stereo is blaring. We regard these c r i t e r i a as conditions for the given sentence to describe a dynamic state. In (35), the states described by (35a-c) are continued by the g e n t s ' effort. Therefore, the states described by (35a-c) are dynamic states. In (36), since i t is natural to assume that rock's rolling is caused by some effects from outside, the gravitation or someone's pushing, for example, the state described by (37) is a dynamic state. /rod in (37), since refrigerators or stereos need an input of energy to work, the states described by (37) are dynamic states.
TI-~ PROGRESSIVE IN ENGLISIt AND JAPANESE 6. CONCLUSION In this paper, we made an attenpt to characterize the s i l i l a r i t y and difference between progressive sentence in Japanese and English. The s i t i l a r i t y between them is that in both languages, progressive sentences are used to describe a state which is perceived as the realization of one of the state types which form the event type represented by the sentence eubedded in those sentences. In this sense, the progressive operators in both English (be -ing) and Japanese ( t e i r u ) can be characterized as stativizer. The essential difference between the progressive in English and Japanese is that the state described by an English progressive sentence must be a dynamic state, while this constraint does not apply to a Japanese p r o g r e s s ire sentence.
~PERENCES Bach, E (1986) "The Algebra of Events, " Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 5 16. Comrie, Ik (1976) Aspect. Cambridge University Press. Oowty, n. (1979) Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Reidel, Dordrecht. Dowty, O. (1989) "On the SeLantic Content of the Notion of 'Thematic Role'." In Chierchia, G., Partee, tk and Turner, P~ (eds.) Properties, Types and Meaning II. Kluwer, l)ordrecht, 69 129. G~lton, & (1984) The Logic of Aspect. Clarendon, Oxfor~L Kamp, l{ (1979) "Events, Instants and Temporal Reference." in B~uerle, P,, Egli, U. and yon Stechow, /k (eds.) Semantics from Different Points of View. Springer, Berlin, 376-417. La.koff, G. (1977) "Linguistic Gestalts. " CLS 13, 236 287. Iandman, F. (1992) "The Progressive." Natural Language Semntics 1, 1-32. Linl~ C~ (1987) "Algebraic Semantics of Event Structures." In Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, ~ and Veltmn, F. (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth Amsterdam Colloquium April 13-16 1987, University of Amsterdam, 243-262. 0gihara, T. (1985) Aspectual Properties of Verbs in Japanese and English. ms. Parsons, T. (1989) "The Progressive in English." Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 213 41. Takahashi, T. (1985) Gendai Nihongo I)ooshi no Asupekuto to Tensn. Syuee Syuppan, Tokyo. Tera~ura, 1~ (1984)Nihongo no shintakusu to Ini II. Kurosio, Tokyo. Uneda, I~ and Murasaki, E (1982) "Gendai Choosengo. " in Teramura, It et al (eds.)Gaikokugo to no Taisyoo II. Meiji Syoin, Tokyo, 40-60. Vendler, 7, (1967) Linguistics in Philosophy. Cornell University Press, Ithac~ Verkuyl, tt (1972) On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects. Reidel, Dordrecht. Vlach, F. (1981) "The Semantics of the Progressive. " in Tedeschi, P. and Zacnen, & (eds.) (1981) Syntax and Senantics 14. Academic Press, New York, 271 92. Yoshikawa, T. (1976) "'Gendai Nihongo nooshi no Asupekuto no Kenkyuu. " in Kindaichi, tL (ecL) (1976) Nihongo Dooshi no Asupekuto. Mngi Syoboo, Tokyo, 155 227.
LSC
18/I-2--J
275