{"id":11656,"date":"2018-11-13T06:06:46","date_gmt":"2018-11-13T10:06:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/whamit.mit.edu\/?p=11656"},"modified":"2018-11-12T20:47:24","modified_gmt":"2018-11-13T00:47:24","slug":"lf-reading-group-1114-frank-staniszewski-mit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/2018\/11\/13\/lf-reading-group-1114-frank-staniszewski-mit\/","title":{"rendered":"LF Reading Group 11\/14 - Frank Staniszewski (MIT)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Speaker:<\/strong> Frank Staniszewski<\/a><\/span> (MIT)
\n Title:<\/strong> Deriving the properties of until <\/em>phrases
\n Date and time:<\/strong> Wednesday, November, 13, 1-2 pm
\n Location:<\/strong> 32-D461<\/p>\n

Abstract:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The well-known paradigm in (1-2) presents a challenge for a semantic analysis of until<\/em> phrases.<\/p>\n

(1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 a. He was angry until the end of the conference
\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 b. He wasn\u0092t available until the end of the conference.
\n (2)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 a. *The bomb exploded until yesterday.
\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 b. The bomb didn\u0092t explode until yesterday.
\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Condoravdi (2008)<\/p>\n

Stative\/progressive predicates can appear with until<\/em> phrases with or without negation, as in (1a-b). Perfective predicates, however, can appear with until<\/em> phrases only under negation, as shown in (2a-b).
\n Most analyses of this paradigm fall into two basic camps. One proposes that there is only one until<\/em>, which selects for \u0093durative\u0094 predicates. This means that without negation, it can combine only with stative\/progressive predicates, thus explaining the badness of (2a) (Klima (1964), Mittwoch (1977), a.o.). In this system, the acceptability of (2b) is a consequence of the assumption that negation is a predicate modifier that can create a durative predicate.
\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The other camp proposes that until is lexically ambiguous between two untils<\/em>. One is a \u0093durative\u0094 until<\/em> that combines only with statives\/progressives, and another is a \u0093punctual\u0094 until<\/em> that combines with perfectives, and is additionally assumed to be an NPI (Horn (1970, 1972, Karttunen (1974), Condoravdi (2008), a.o.). Here, the NPI property of \u0093punctual\u0094 until<\/em> derives the ungrammaticality of (2a).
\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In this presentation of work in progress, I explore another possible approach. I propose that there is only one until<\/em>, with a basic meaning similar to before, that is compatible with both stative\/progressive as well as perfective predicates. I then hypothesize that this basic meaning of until<\/em> is obligatorily strengthened in positive environments to its \u0093durative\u0094 interpretation by exhaustification, adopting a mechanism similar to ones that have been proposed for obligatory strengthening of other quantificational elements (Bar-Lev & Margulis (2014), Bowler (2014) a.o.). Given this strengthening, until<\/em> phrases will be incompatible with perfective predicates in upward-entailing environments, thus deriving the badness of (2a).
\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I will discuss some arguments for the various approaches, and then develop an analysis that builds on a presuppositional entry for until<\/em> (Karttunen (1974), Condoravdi (2008)), which in turn interacts with an exhaust operator as proposed in Bar-Lev & Fox (2017) in an attempt to derive the attested empirical patterns.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Speaker: Frank Staniszewski (MIT) Title: Deriving the properties of until phrases Date and time: Wednesday, November, 13, 1-2 pm Location: 32-D461 Abstract:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The well-known paradigm in (1-2) presents a challenge for a semantic analysis of until phrases. (1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 a. He was angry until the end of the conference \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 b. He wasn\u0092t available until […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":21,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11656","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-announcements"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11656","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/21"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11656"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11656\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11674,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11656\/revisions\/11674"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11656"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11656"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11656"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}