In this section, we show how the Interface constraint in (20) determines the valence of a verb, and how spatial construal in vP interacts with temporal construal in TP.
(20) vP must deWne a spatial Figure-Ground conWguration.
5.3.1 Activities.
The verb swim has a [þEXT] Akt F based on its lexical content: swimming implies gestures eVected by the arms, legs, and torso of a swimmer, which constitute the FIGURE of a spatial conWguration. As swim implies the water which functions as GROUND, its FIGURE–GROUND conWguration is com- plete without a direct object in VP.
In (21), the [þEXT] Akt F of swim selects a spatial subject, John, in Spec vP which checks its [þpl.] Akt F with the [þpl.] abstract number F in v. John is
construed as a body which delimits the swimming conWguration and whose body-parts function as the Instrument which realizes it.
When John raises to Spec TP to check its person F with the tense morpheme in T, it is assigned an internal temporality, or biography, included in the discourse reference time interval and the psychological properties of inten- tionality and will which allow it to function as Trigger and T-controller of the event.
At the Interface, the event vP describes is inserted in the time interval denoted by T: every sub-event e of the swimming event is predicated of one point t of the time interval.
(21) John swam TP Spec T⬘ T vP Spec past v⬘ v +pl V swim +EXT John +pl John pers vP t t t t e e e e 5.3.2 Accomplishments
The verb read has a [þEXT] Akt F: reading consists of a plurality of gestures with the eyes, hands, and brain which constitute the FIGURE of a spatial conWguration. The GROUND of the reading activity is, implicitly, printed matter, so the direct object is not strictly necessary; in (22), it merely restricts the GROUND.
The [þpl] Akt Fs of the subject and direct object are both checked with the [þpl] F of v by movement or by agreement (cf. Chomsky 1998). John in spec vP delimits the spatial conWguration and functions as its Manipulator. When John raises from Spec vP to Spec TP to check its person F, it is assigned the event roles of Trigger and T-controller of the event.
(22) John read a book TP Spec T⬘ T vP Spec past v⬘ v DP V John +pl. John +pers VP a book +pl. read +EXT +pl.
So far, we have not assigned an event function to the direct object. Tenny (1987) proposed that the direct object measures the time of the event. For example, in John ate an apple, the event lasts until the apple is completely eaten. Similarly, Verkuyl (1972) pointed out that it takes longer for John to write a letter to the President than to write the letter A.
In our framework the direct object cannot measure time, for it is construed in VP, where temporal construal is not relevant. The direct object measures, rather, the eVort, calculated in terms of the force and number of gestures which the subject of vP must supply in order to realize the spatial conWgura- tion VP deWnes.
It does not, in fact, necessarily take more time to write a letter to the President than to write the letter A. This depends on circumstances, mainly on the will of the writer. But it does require more eVort, measured in the number of gestures, to write a letter to the President than to write the letter A. Moreover, there exist verbs which select an external argument solely on the basis of the eVort needed to realize the event the sentence denotes, but without limiting the time spent on the eVort.
(23) a. This book reads easily (even though it’s taking me a long time to get through it).
b. John is easy to like (if you take the time to get to know him). c. I didn’t manage to/couldn’t open the door (no matter how long
I tried).
But there do not seem to be any predicates which select an event which can be completed in a long or short time.
(24) a. This book reads rapidly/in two days. b. John is quick to like.
c. I quicked/dawdled to open the door.
Such data, if veriWed by further research, support the hypothesis that temporal duration is not pertinent in the vP domain in which V selects its arguments.
As with duration, so for telicity. While a conWguration with verb and direct object can be bounded in the deictic discourse space by the delimiting function of the deWnite or demonstrative determiner of the direct object, the temporal duration of the event denoted by the sentence may extend as long as the lifetime of its subject.
(25) a. John read this Bible all his life (without Wnishing it). b. Sisyphus will roll the rock up the hill eternally.
5.3.3 Achievements
5.3.3.1 Unaccusative achievements Unaccusative verbs have a [ EXT] Akt F: the VP denotes a spatial conWguration situated on a point in space in vP and an event located on a point of time in TP. This simple conWguration selects no Manipulator argument in Spec vP— it thus takes auxiliary be in alternating languages—and no T-controller in Spec TP. In (26), the VP headed by the [ EXT] verb arrive denotes the punctual interaction of a Figure with the implied deictic GROUND.
(26) Il arrive/ est arrive´ quelqu’un. (It arrives/ is arrived someone.)
TP Spec T⬘ T vP Spec v⬘ v DP V quelqu’un arrive −EXT VP −pl.
This analysis is not quite satisfactory, however. If the event in (26) were really punctual, (27a) would be ungrammatical, like (27b, c), for a punctual event cannot be placed in the present time interval.
(27) a. Jean arrive. (John is arriving.) b. Je trouve une pie`ce.
(I Wnd a coin.)
c. Je frappe Pierre. ( if semelfactive) (I hit Pierre.)
The progressive interpretation of (27a) suggests that although the event occurs on a point of space in vP and on a point of time in TP, there is a still higher syntactic domain in which the event describes a spatio-temporal trajectory. This is the CP domain, where the event time and space in TP are associated with the reference time and space in CP.
Unaccusative verbs are oriented towards or away from the deictic centre of utterance (cf. Bouchard 1993). We propose that at the CP level of construal, such verbs imply a trajectory in the discourse space. If we assume that any trajectory in space is construed as a temporal trajectory as well, then we can understand why imperfective aspect is grammatical in (27a), which implies a trajectory towards the deictic centre, but not in (27b) and (27c), which do not. A temporally extended event selects a T-controller. For an event construed as extended in time on the CP level, the only available T-controller is the speaker. The speaker does not trigger the event but s/he controls it in time by perceiving it.
The Speaker, like an Experiencer, is the ‘innocent bystander’ who situates an action in time by perceiving it as it unfolds.2 However, the Speaker has an advantage over the Experiencer in that s/he inserts the event in the discourse world by narrating it.
5.3.3.2 Transitive achievements The transitive semelfactive achievement in (28) is paradoxical: the event occurs on a point of space and time, yet it selects a Manipulator and T-controller subject.
(28) John hit Bill.
2 C. Chvany, in an article for which I have unfortunately forgotten the reference, aYrms, with respect to the dative argument in Russian, that ‘there is no innocent bystander’. We may indeed take conscious perception of the event the vP denotes as a sign of complicity.
Unlike an arrival event, a hitting event does not describe a trajectory towards or away from the discourse centre. Thus, it cannot be predicated of an imperfective tense, as shown in (27).
We attribute the contrast in valence between verbs like arriver and verbs like hit not to the absence of a spatial trajectory but to the nature of the space on which the trajectory is deWned. While the verb arriver describes the spatial intersection of an entire FIGURE with the discourse GROUND, which the speaker witnesses, the verb hit describes only a partial intersection: when John hits Bill it is not all of John but only his hand, or an instrument held in his hand, which intersects with the body of Bill. An Instrument lacks the spatial and temporal independence necessary to place an event in space and time. Thus, we must say (28) and cannot say, if the event is intentional, (28’). (28’) John’s hand hit Bill.
Nor can the speaker place the event in (28) in space and time, by locality, for the possessor of the body intervenes between the speaker and the instrumental hand. So whenever VP describes the intersection of a body-part and a body, only the inalienable possessor of the body-part may function as the spatial delimiter of the conWguration in VP and the Manipulator which eVects the action VP describes. (29) denotes a spatial trajectory initiated by John’s hand and bounded by a part of Bill’s body.
(29) John hit Bill.
TP Spec T⬘ T vP Spec v⬘ v DP V John +pl. John pers. VP Bill +pl. hit −EXT −pl.
This spatial trajectory is construed in TP as a temporal trajectory controlled by a T-controller selected for the psychological property of intention. (29) implies that the subject in Spec TP intended the hitting event and targeted its goal, Bill, before the event.
But suppose John hit Bill unintentionally—say, as he fell from a ladder under which Bill was standing? Such sentences are derived when the subject lacks a person F, as in (30), or does not check its person F in T in a sentence like (28).
(30) The bullet hit Bill.
A subject which checks its number/Akt F in vP but not a person F in TP is construed at the Interface as a body; it lacks the psychological property of intention which underlies the Trigger and T-controller functions. The implicit spatio-temporal trajectory the sentence describes is placed in time not by its subject but, as with unaccusative sentences, by the speaker/narrator.
5.3.4 States
Stative verbs have a [ EXT] Akt F. They select neither a Manipulator in Spec vp nor a T-controller in Spec TP. I suggest that states satisfy (1) by projecting the FIGURE/GROUND conWguration deWned in vP onto the TP level.
More precisely, the subject of a stative sentence functions as a Spatio- temporal Ground in which its predicate, construed as a FIGURE, is inserted. In (31), the stage-level predicate ‘be hungry’ or ‘be high’ is asserted to be a property of the subject’s space at the speech time. In (32), an individual-level predicate ‘be tall’ or ‘be high’ is asserted to hold of all stages of the subject’s space/time (see Carlson 1977).
(31) a. John is hungry.
b. The sun is high in the sky. (32) a. John is tall.
b. The building is tall.
In (33) the subject is the locative pronoun there, which denotes the discourse space into which a FIGURE, the body of a man, is inserted at the utterance time. The PP in the room/dans la pie`ce restricts the discourse space.
(33) a. There is a man in the room. b. Il y a un homme dans la pie`ce.
When a [þEXT] verb like have substitutes for [ EXT] be, and the tense is episodic, then the verb selects a subject which functions not only as the GROUND in which a FIGURE is inserted but also as an individual with a biography which maintains the conWguration over time. In other words, while
[ EXT] be does not contribute to the temporal construal of the VP which contains it, [þEXT] have does.
Just as the theta-role Agent is an umbrella term for an argument which combines the elementary event roles of Manipulator, Trigger, and T-Control- ler, the Possessor theta-role is an umbrella term for an argument which combines the elementary functions of Spatial Ground, assigned in vP, and T-controller, assigned in TP.
(34) a. John has a new baby brother. b. John has Bill’s book.
A [þhu] nominal which does not check a person F, as in (33a, b) above, is construed as a body or location in space rather than as a person reacting in time. Checking of a person F suYces to distinguish a location from a person with the ci morpheme in Italian.
Russian distinguishes the spatial and psychological construals of a [þhu] nominal by case-marking. In the inalienable possession structures in (35) and (36), yþGen identiWes a [þhuman] argument as a location, while dative marking identiWes the same nominal as an experiencer (Paykin and van Peteghem 2003).
(35) Devka razorvem tebe /y tebya serbtze The girl will tear apart you-dat/at youþgen heart (The girl will tear your heart apart.)
(36) Veter trepal emy / y nevo golosi na golove. The wind blew him-dat/to him-gen hair on head. (The wind was blowing his hair on his head.)
Paykin and van Peteghem suggest that the [þhu] argument is assigned diVerent theta-roles, Goal or Experiencer, in such contexts. In our framework, the semantic diVerence in the construal of the argument reduces to a mor- phosyntactic diVerence. I propose that when a locative P lacking a Tense or person F, like Russian y or the incorporated P in English there, case-marks a nominal it blocks its access to T in TP. Consequently, the nominal cannot check its person F in Spec TP and is construed as a location, even if it has a lexical þhu Feature. A dative argument, on the contrary, in Russian as in French, checks a person F in T and is assigned the psychological properties of the Experiencer.