<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Adam,</div><div><br></div><div>This is an interesting question and one that seems surprisingly under-researched, now that you mention it, regarding serial verb constructions. Specific papers may have mentioned something about lexical aspect, but a specific reference discussing this in general isn't coming to mind at the moment.</div><div><br></div><div>Of course aspectual functions of verbs in (or grammaticalized from) SVCs are widely reported. For an overview of semantic types, see my presentation here:</div><div><a href="https://swl8.sciencesconf.org/data/pages/Ross_Lovestrand_SWL8.pdf">https://swl8.sciencesconf.org/data/pages/Ross_Lovestrand_SWL8.pdf</a></div><div>That is also mentioned in chapter 4 of my dissertation (with a broader overview of SVCs and their typology) here: <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.5546425">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.5546425</a></div><div><br></div><div>Of the four main types surveyed here, posture SVCs often express imperfective aspect. It wouldn't surprise me if there were lexical aspect restrictions on the verbs that combine with posture verbs like that, but I'm not aware of a general discussion about it.</div><div><br></div><div>My dissertation also gives an overview of pseudocoordination constructions ('go and get', etc.), which are similar to SVCs (but have 'and' linking the verbs). That includes the TAKE AND construction, although it should be noted that this function of TAKE is very different from SVCs: in SVCs, TAKE usually serves an argument-increasing function (e.g. instrumental 'take knife cut bread', etc.), while in pseudocoordination ('He took and left') the function of TAKE is exceptionally intransitive,* functionally similar to GO AND, often expressing surprise or suddenness. (More about this in my dissertation.) It has often been observed for these constructions that (varying by language and construction type) they may be restricted to agentive, intentional, in-control, etc., subjects or actions. See for example Weiss (2008, linked below) on Russian subjects controlling the action in this construction. This is not directly connected to lexical aspect, but does overlap with questions of verb selection; for example, stative verbs seem unlikely in a construction like "Go [/take] and know Spanish!".</div><div><a href="https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-11813">https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-11813</a></div><div><br></div><div>[*TAKE can also be used transitively in pseudocoordination more like SVCs,
as in English "He took the money and ran" or "He took the knife and cut the bread" but that's not as widely studied or
as clearly grammaticalized as the TAKE AND type. Interestingly, this intransitive-like TAKE is also not widely used similarly in SVCs cross-linguistically.]</div><div><br></div><div>More generally, it is interesting that aspect is a common function in SVCs, but probably not tense per se, so this suggests to me that aspect is more integrated with the SVCs, while tense is something about the clause as a whole. It is generally stated (in most definitions of SVCs) that both verbs must share TAM, including both tense and aspect, but that may be slightly overstated, because some languages seem to allow at least some flexibility for aspectual combinations while tense matching seems to be exceptionless. In other words, some languages appear to permit the verbs in SVCs to differ in aspect as long as they combine in a way that is compatible with interpretation as a single event. By strict (and traditional) definition some scholars might exclude these as SVCs, but regardless they are multi-verb constructions that could be of interest to you. As one example, see Lovestrand (2018:98-103) on Barayin for specific restrictions on grammatical combinations of (distinct) aspect marking in SVCs.</div><div>Lovestrand, Joseph. 2018. Serial verb constructions in Barayin: Typology, description and Lexical-Functional Grammar. University of Oxford Ph.D. dissertation. <a href="https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:39406562-02d3-46f5-abf3-180d22225925">https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:39406562-02d3-46f5-abf3-180d22225925</a></div><div><br></div><div>In summary, this does seem to be a relevant question for further study. It seems plausible that there may be some restrictions based on event structure for which verbs can combine, but I don't know of any generalizations to report at the moment
because it hasn't been studied extensively from a comparative
perspective.</div><div><br></div><div>Daniel<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 11:01 AM Paul Hopper via Lingtyp <<a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:16px;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-kerning:none">A couple of papers of my own on this topic:</span></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:16px;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Paul Hopper, 2007 “Emergent Serialization in English: Pragmatics and Typology.” In Jeff Good, ed., <i>Language Universals and Language Change, </i>520-554<i>.</i> Oxford U. Press.<br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:16px;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-kerning:none">Paul Hopper,<span> </span>2007 “Verb serialization with <i>to take</i> in English, with a note on French and German.” <i>Combat pour les Langues du Monde: Hommage à Claude Hagège </i>ed. Jocelyne Fernandez-Vest, 199-210, Editions L’Harmattan.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:16px;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-kerning:none">Paul Hopper, 2002 “Hendiadys and auxiliation in English.” <i>Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse,</i> ed. Joan Bybee and Mickey Noonan, 145-173. Benjamins.</span></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:16px;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-kerning:none">Coseriu 1996, mentioned by Paolo Ramat, also some discussion by me in the Jeff Good 2007 volume, proposes syntactic diffusion to explain the spread of 'take' in Europe. Maybe, but 'take' is common as the first term in serialization constructions, see e.g. Carol Lord 1993 Historical Change in Verb Serialization (Benjamins) on West African languages and a lot more studies. One intriguing aspect is the emergent grammar of hendyadic combinations like <i>go ahead and, turn around and, </i>and many others, including, at a further point on the spectrum, </span><i>pick up the phone and, roll up one's sleeves and, look NP in the eye and,</i><span><i> </i>etc. It might be hard to draw a line between the grammatical and the idiomatic identification of aspect.</span></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:16px;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span>There is a large bibliography reflecting a variety of approaches. I'm aware of Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen's work on hendiadys from an Interactional Linguistics perspective, for example.</span></p><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:16px;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-kerning:auto;font-variant-alternates:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-feature-settings:normal;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span>- Paul Hopper</span></p></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 9:06 AM Randy J. LaPolla via Lingtyp <<a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>Hi Adam,<div>Modern Mandarin Chinese does not have causative accomplishment and causative achievement verbs, and so to express the sense of such verbs, e.g. I broke a cup, one uses a serial verb construction where the first verb expresses the causal action and the second verb expresses the resulting accomplishment or achievement, e.g. [I hit-broke a cup]. This has been recognised for some 40+ years, so is discussed in any grammar of Chinese since then. This sort of thing is also found in some other Sino-Tibetan languages. See Matisoff 1969 (attached) or his 1973 Grammar of Lahu (U of California Press) for discussion of Lahu examples.</div><div><br></div><div>Randy</div><div><br></div><div></div></div><div><div><br id="m_-7964206714385404494m_-3598641108540741786lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage"><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 22 May 2024, at 5:29 PM, Adam James Ross Tallman via Lingtyp <<a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:rgb(76,17,48)"><br clear="all"></div><div style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:rgb(76,17,48)" class="gmail_default">Hello all,</div><div style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:rgb(76,17,48)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:rgb(76,17,48)" class="gmail_default">I'm interested in combinations of lexical elements (serial verb constructions or verb compound constructions or whatever) and whether there is anything specific work which has described, classified or theorized about these in terms of lexical aspect. I guess the question is:<br></div><div style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:rgb(76,17,48)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:rgb(76,17,48)" class="gmail_default">When V1 combines with V2, what happens to the actionality class of the combination? Is one just subordinated to the other or is there some way in which the aspects of each are coerced?</div><div style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:rgb(76,17,48)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:rgb(76,17,48)" class="gmail_default">I've seen a lot of discussions about how pieces of such constructions might evolve into grammatical aspect markers (e.g. "finish" gradually becomes a completive marker), but I wonder why there appear to be few descriptions of the actionality classes of lexical combinations?</div><div style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:rgb(76,17,48)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:rgb(76,17,48)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:rgb(76,17,48)" class="gmail_default">best,</div><div style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:rgb(76,17,48)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:monospace,monospace;color:rgb(76,17,48)" class="gmail_default">Adam<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><font face="times new roman, serif">Adam J.R. Tallman</font></div><div dir="ltr"><font face="times new roman, serif">Post-doctoral Researcher <br></font></div><div dir="ltr"><font face="times new roman, serif">Friedrich Schiller Universität<br></font></div><div><font face="times new roman, serif">Department of English Studies<br></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>Lingtyp mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br><a href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" target="_blank">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div name="divtagdefaultwrapper">
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-family:Times-Roman,serif">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-family:Times-Roman,serif">
__________</p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-family:Times-Roman,serif">
Paul J. Hopper</p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-family:Times-Roman,serif">
Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Humanities</p><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-family:Times-Roman,serif">Department of English</p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-family:Times-Roman,serif">
Dietrich College of Humanities & Social Sciences</p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-family:Times-Roman,serif">
Carnegie Mellon University</p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-family:Times-Roman,serif">
Pittsburgh PA 15213, USA</p>
</div>
</div>
</div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</blockquote></div>