17.2185, Review: Discourse Analysis, Semantics, Syntax: Thompson, Ellen (2005)

[linguist at LINGUISTLIST.ORG]

LINGUIST List: Vol-17-2185. Fri Jul 28 2006. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 17.2185, Review: Discourse Analysis, Semantics, Syntax: Thompson, Ellen (2005)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews: Laura Welcher, Rosetta Project / Long Now Foundation  
 <reviews at linguistlist.org> 

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Laura Welcher <laura at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

This LINGUIST List issue is a review of a book published by one of our
supporting publishers, commissioned by our book review editorial staff. We
welcome discussion of this book review on the list, and particularly invite
the author(s) or editor(s) of this book to join in. To start a discussion of
this book, you can use the Discussion form on the LINGUIST List website. For
the subject of the discussion, specify "Book Review" and the issue number of
this review. If you are interested in reviewing a book for LINGUIST, look for
the most recent posting with the subject "Reviews: AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW", and
follow the instructions at the top of the message. You can also contact the
book review staff directly.


===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 27-Jul-2006
From: Judith Tonhauser < juditht at stanford.edu >
Subject: Time in Natural Language 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:42:03
From: Judith Tonhauser < juditht at stanford.edu >
Subject: Time in Natural Language 
 

Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-2257.html 

Author: Thompson, Ellen
Title: Time in Natural Language
Subtitle: Syntactic Interfaces with Semantics and Discourse
Series: Interface Explorations 11
Publisher: Mouton de Gruyter
Year: 2005

Judith Tonhauser, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University

Ellen Thompson's book _Time in Natural Language_ investigates the
syntax-semantics interface in the domain of temporality. The book's central
claim is that syntax has an effect on the temporal interpretation of sentences
and discourses. Thompson (T, henceforth) proposes a mapping between the semantic
representation of temporality and the structure of clauses. This mapping is
argued to account for a diverse set of English data in the 7 chapters of the
book (which also contains a list of references and an index).

Chapter 1 of _Time in Natural Language_ (pp.1-14) presents the empirical domain
of the book and introduces its theoretical framework. Empirically, T is
concerned with phenomena which, she argues, illustrate the effect of syntax on
temporal interpretation. One such phenomenon is the position of temporal phrases
like ''at 2pm'' in examples like (1).

(1a) Mary had left the store at 2pm.
(1b) At 2pm, Mary had left the store.

(1a), where ''at 2pm'' is clause-final, can mean either that Mary's leaving
occurred at 2pm (event time modification), or that she was already gone by 2pm
and her leaving was prior to 2pm (reference time modification). (1b), where ''at
2pm'' is clause-initial, only has the latter interpretation. Thus, the position
of the time adverbial correlates with different temporal interpretations. _Time
in Natural Language_ argues that this empirical phenomenon (as well as others
discussed in the book) should be analyzed as an effect of syntax on temporal
interpretation and the book offers a general framework for capturing this effect.

Formally, _Time in Natural Language_ is based on the Minimalist Program (Chomsky
1995) and Reichenbach's (1947) analysis of temporality, which uses three times
to represent the temporal meaning of clauses (event time E, reference time R,
and speech time S). T proposes a mapping from the semantic representation of
temporality to the structure of clauses: according to this mapping, the three
times E, R, and S are semantic features associated with the heads of VP, AspP
and TP, respectively. The tree in (2) illustrates the structure of clauses
assumed by T ((16), p. 7).

(2)  [TP [DP_i T' [T AspP [Asp vP [v  VP [t_i V' [V DP]]]]]]]

English tense morphemes order R with respect to S, which is the speech time in
the default (non-embedded) case. In the past tense, R precedes S (written as
R_S), in the future tense S precedes R (S_R), and the two times are
contemporaneous in the present tense (written as S,R). The aspectual morpheme
''have'' orders E with respect to R: when ''have'' is present, E precedes R
(E_R), absence of ''have'' results in E overlapping R (E,R).  The common theme
of the analyses presented in chapters 2-7 is that the functional position in
which an expression is located or to which an expression is adjoined (i.e. TP,
AspP, VP) corresponds with the time relative to which the expression is
interpreted (i.e., S, R, E, respectively).

Chapter 2 (pp. 15-49) discusses the temporal interpretation of time adverbials
like ''at 2pm'' (cf. example (1)). T proposes that such adverbials can adjoin
either to AspP (the functional projection associated with the reference time R)
or to VP (the projection associated with the event time E). In the former case,
the adverbial temporally locates R, resulting in the interpretation of (1a,b)
that Mary is gone by 2pm and her leaving occurred at a time prior to 2pm. In the
latter case, the adverbial temporally locates the event time E, resulting in the
interpretation of (1a) where Mary left at 2pm and is observed to be gone at a
time after 2pm.

The formal analysis implements (in the Minimalist Program) Uriagereka's
(1988:208) assumption that adverbials can only modify the denotation of the part
of the phrase they syntactically govern. T presents data from a wide variety of
phenomena, including linear order restrictions, coordination, and preposition
stranding, in support of this analysis.

Chapter 3 'Adjunct Clauses and the Structural Representation of Simultaneity'
(pp.51-85) develops the idea that there is a correlation between the temporal
interpretation of adjunct clauses headed by e.g. ''before'', ''after'' and
''while'', and their adjunction site.

(3a) John slept while/when Mary sang.    
(3b) John slept after/before Mary sang.

T proposes that temporal adjunct clauses with a simultaneous reading like (3a)
are adjoined to VP (which is associated with the event time E) whereas temporal
adjunct clause with a nonsimultaneous reading like (3b) are adjoined to TP
(which is associated with the speech time S). The relation between the position
of a clause and its interpretation is captured by the condition in (4) (T's
(23a), p.60):

(4) Condition on Simultaneous Interpretation: In order for an Event time ALPHA
to be interpreted as simultaneous with an Event time BETA, ALPHA must be in the
modification domain of BETA.

According to (4), the two events in (3a) are interpreted as simultaneous because
a clause headed by ''while'' or ''when'' is adjoined to VP. Hence, the two
clauses are in the same modification domain (according to Chomsky's (1995)
definition of a checking domain). The two events in (3b), on the other hand, are
not interpreted as simultaneous because a clause headed by ''before'' or
''after'' is adjoined to TP, and therefore does not end up in the same
modification domain as the main clause. Again, T presents support for this
analysis with data from a variety of phenomena, including preposition stranding
with temporals, direct object/adjunct asymmetries, and ellipsis structures.

The empirical focus of Chapter 4 'The Temporal Syntax of Arguments: Reduced
Relatives in Subject Position' (pp.87-117) is the interpretation of gerundive
relative clauses, such as ''waiting for flight #307'' in (5).

(5) The passengers waiting for flight #307 left the room.

T argues that such clauses do not possess their own speech time S since they do
not have a TP projection. The proposal is that their interpretation is
determined by the position in which the noun phrase that embeds the reduced
relative is interpreted. There are two possibilities: if the noun phrase is
interpreted in Spec of TP, the noun phrase and the reduced relative are
temporally interpreted at the speech time S, whereas an interpretation of the
noun phrase in Spec of VP results in an interpretation at the event time E. T
goes on to show how this analysis accounts for data from coordination,
existential constructions, and the scope of quantificational adverbs.

Chapter 5 ''Principles of Time in Discourse: Temporal Syntax beyond the
Sentence'' (pp.119-155) turns to the temporal interpretation of discourses. In
this chapter, T focuses on the interpretation of discourses with ''then'', as in
(6).

(6)   Mary will speak to the reporters.    
(6a) Then Bill will photograph her.    
(6b) Bill will photograph her then.

The empirical observation (which goes back at least to Schiffrin 1992 and
Glasbey 1993) is that clause-initial ''then'' (6a) leads to a sequential
interpretation of the two sentences in the discourse, whereas clause-final
''then'' (6b) leads to a contemporaneous interpretation (with simple tenses). T
argues that the ''temporal interpretation across sentences in discourse is
subject to the same principles as temporal interpretation within sentences'' (p.
150). While in previous chapters the adjunction of clause-internal adjuncts were
argued to correlate with different interpretations, T here accounts for the
interpretation of discourses in relation to the position of ''then''. She
proposes a constraint to the effect that clause-initial ''then'' links the
reference times of the two clauses (hence allowing the event times to be
ordered) while clause-final ''then'' links the event times of the two clauses
(and hence requires a contemporaneous interpretation of the events).

Chapters 6 and 7 extend the analysis of the relation between the structural
representation of temporality and temporal interpretation to the subclausal
level. In Chapter 6 ''The Structure of Aspect'' (pp.157-181), T suggests that
the position in which a verb is interpreted correlates with whether the event
denoted by the verb phrase receives a telic or an atelic interpretation. In
particular, telic events are interpreted in AspP while atelic events are
interpreted lower than AspP. She presents support for this proposal on the basis
of the distribution and interpretation of the adverb ''quickly'', and the syntax
of durative and time frame adjuncts.

In Chapter 7 ''Syntax and Semantics of Aspectual Verbs'' (pp.183-204), T argues
that the meaning of aspectual verbs like ''start'', ''begin'', ''continue'',
''keep'', ''finish'', ''cease'' correlates with the syntactic position in which
they are interpreted. Aspectual verbs like ''start'' and ''begin'', which denote
the initial phase of an event, are interpreted in V. Verbs like ''continue'' and
''keep'', which denote the middle phase of an event, syntactically raise from V
to v. And verbs like ''finish'' and ''cease'', which denote the end of an event,
raise from V to v to Asp. T proposes that the ''beginning, middle, and end of an
event are represented syntactically by the beginning, middle and end of the verb
chain created by verb raising from V to v to Asp(ect)'' (p. 184).  Verbs such as
''begin'' and ''start'', for instance, which describe the beginning of an event
have only the tail of the verb chain interpreted at LF. T further motivates this
proposal with data from the behavior of ''only'', existential and extraposition
constructions, and quantifier ambiguities.

EVALUATION/DISCUSSION

_Time in Natural Language_ lives up to its goal of presenting an analysis of the
effect of syntax on temporal interpretation, and the book gives a unified
analysis of an impressively diverse set of English data. The proposed mapping
between the semantic representation of temporality and clause structure is a
relatively simple one, and it is intriguing to see how far T can take it in
drawing connections between temporality and other domains of grammar, such as
word order, scope, presuppositions, and extraction. The book illustrates one
particular way in which the syntax-semantics interface in the domain of
temporality can be viewed, which makes it interesting to researchers working on
temporality or the syntax-semantics interface, more generally.

The book is well-written, and the structure of the argument is clearly presented
and easy to follow. Despite its theoretical orientation, the book should be easy
to understand even with minimal background in the Minimalist Program or
Reichenbach's analysis of temporality. I now raise three concerns with T's proposal.

My first concern relates to the use and presentation of data. The interpretation
of many semantic phenomena, including temporality and focus sensitive operators
like ''only'', depends on the discourse context. In several cases, T's
grammaticality judgements in _Time in Natural Language_ are hard to follow
because of the lack of a discourse context. (7), for instance, which T deems
ungrammatical, is considered fine by two native English speakers I consulted in
a context where the question under discussion is what will happen tomorrow at
3pm, after Mary delivers her speech at 2pm.

(7) *Mary will have spoken to the reporters. Bill will photograph her then.
((50), p.144)

Similarly, on p.187, T claims that (8a) (T's (7a)) does not have the
interpretation in (8b) (T's (7c)), which she marks with a *, just like
ungrammatical sentences.

(8a)  John only continued the book.    
(8b) *John continued the book, as opposed to doing something else to it.

Again, my native speaker consultants find the example perfectly acceptable in
the following context: John has been writing a book for 3 years now and is way
behind his deadline. He has had writer's block from January to April 2006 but
has finally started writing again in May 2006. His publisher inquires with a
mutual friend whether John has managed to finish the book by now (July 2006),
but his friend reports ''John only CONTINUED the book''. In this context, (8a)
has the interpretation in (8b).

The inclusion of discourse contexts would have benefited the reader's
understanding of T's judgements.

In other cases, naturally occurring data and English consultants' judgements do
not accord with T's grammaticality judgements. For instance, in chapter 7, T
claims that aspectual verbs like ''continue'' do not occur in existential
there-constructions, as in (9) (T's (12b), p.190).

(9) *There continued a lecture on anaphora.

A Google search finds numerous examples with ''there continued a'', for instance
(10):

(10) Down the Dark and Middle Ages there continued a constant struggle by
enlightened men to use their minds without losing their heads.
(http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=41)

The example in (11) (T's (46b), p.107) is claimed to be ''slightly marginal''
(which T indicates with a ?), again to the disagreement of my English consultants.

(11) ?A passenger waiting for the announcement entered the room from California.

In sum, the empirical side of the argumentation in _Time in Natural Language_
would have benefited from the use of naturally occurring data and the
presentation of discourse contexts. Given that the empirical focus of the book
is English, a language for which there exist many corpora and native speakers
are easily accessible, the book's reliance on constructed examples is puzzling.

My second concern is a theoretical one, and relates to the semantic theory
presented in ''Time in Natural Language.'' For a start, T assumes a division of
E, R and S into a tense relation, which relates S and R, and an aspect relation,
which relates E and R. This division is not part of Reichenbach's original
proposal, on which T relies in her book, but T neglects to cite authors who have
proposed such a division, like Comrie (1985) and Klein (1994). Next, T's
introduction to Reichenbach's system is rather informal, and it is misleading
with respect to the characterization of the reference time R. On p.4, T
introduces E, R and S on the basis of the sentence in (12).

(12) At 2:00, Mary had left the store.

T claims (p.4) that the event time E is ''the time of Mary's leaving'' and the
reference time R is ''the time by which Mary leaves (in this sentence, 2:00).''
 Typically, however, the reference time (if is given a characterization at all)
is described as the time from which the event is presented (cf. Klein's (1994)
conceptualization of the reference time as the topic time). Thus, the reference
time R in (12) is 2:00, but it is not the time by which Mary leaves!

The semantic analysis of particular phenomena in _Time in Natural Language_ is
often imprecise. A particularly striking example of the weakness of the semantic
analysis is the proposed interpretation of sentence-medial ''then''. Just like
sentence-initial ''then'', sentence-medial ''then'' results in ordered
interpretations of the events denoted by the two clauses in a discourse like
(13) (T's (24a) p.132).

(13) Mary will speak to the reporters.  Bill will then photograph her.

T claims that sentence-medial ''then'' requires the reference time R of its
clause to be linked to the reference time R of the previous clause. Thus, as
illustrated in (14) (T's (24b) p.132), T's analysis predicts that the
interpretation of (13) results in linked speech times S, linked reference times
R, and that S precedes R (since the two clauses in (13) are in future tense).

(14) S_R,E (representation of ''Mary will speak to the reporters.'')     | |   
(link between the S and R of the two utterances)     S_R,E (representation of
''Bill will then photograph her.'')

Now, T claims that ''[s]ince the Event times of [(14)] are not linked, they are
interpreted as noncotemporal, and the ordered reading of [(13)] results''
(p.132). This is not correct: although the two Es are not linked, they are
cotemporal with their respective Rs (R,E), since the clauses do not contain the
aspectual morpheme ''have'' (which orders R and E). Thus, since the Rs are
cotemporal, and the Es are cotemporal with the Rs, it follows from (14) that the
Es are cotemporal, too, despite T's assertion to the contrary. T addresses this
dilemma in footnote 9 (p.152), where she writes that ''times are interpreted as
cotemporal only if they are linked''. This, however, explicitly contradicts her
assumption that if ''two times are separated by a comma, they are interpreted as
contemporaneous'' (p.4), which is also the way Reichenbach's times E, R and S
are typically used.

In sum, while _Time in Natural Language_ certainly strives to integrate a
semantic analysis to the syntactic analysis of temporality, its execution is not
always satisfying.

The third issue I would like to raise here concerns the conceptualization of the
syntax-semantics interface promoted in ''Time in Natural Language.'' As
mentioned above, the general tenor of the book is that observed meaning
differences between related constructions can be accounted for by different
syntactic structures. In chapter 3, for instance, T acknowledges the
interpretive differences between connectors like ''before/after'' versus
''when/while'', but the interpretation of clauses featuring these connectors are
not directly attributed to the meaning of the connectors. Instead, the meaning
differences are only indirectly attributed to the connectors: clauses headed by
''before/after'' adjoin to a different site than clauses headed by ''while'',
and the adjunction site determines whether the clause receives a simultaneous or
non-simultaneous interpretation. Similarly, the analysis of aspectual verbs in
chapter 7 does not directly implement their meaning in the semantic analysis but
encodes the differences in the syntactic analysis. Thus, _Time in Natural
Language_ analyzes observed meaning differences in the syntactic representation
of time rather than in the semantic one, thereby assigning weight to the
syntactic component of the syntax-semantics interface in temporality where
others have proposed semantic solutions (e.g. Schiffrin (1992) and Glasbey
(1993) for the interpretation of ''then'', Beaver and Condoravdi (2003) for the
interpretation of ''before'' and ''after'', and Partee (1984) and Kamp and Reyle
(1993:ch5) more generally). Previous semantic analyses, if mentioned at all, are
not discussed in ''Time in Natural Language.'' While I do not want to argue here
against the particular view of the syntax-semantics interface presented in
''Time in Natural Language,'' I believe the book would have benefited from a
discussion of the way in which the syntax-semantics interface is conceptualized
and the ways in which T's approach is different from and/or superior to semantic
analyses.

In conclusion, Thompson's _Time in Natural Language_ is of interest to
researchers working on the syntax-semantics interface in temporality as a
noteworthy and thought-provoking take on the topic. I find the book less
suitable as a reading for a semantics seminar on temporality for the reasons
outlined above.

A final note on editing: I have encountered over 60 spelling mistakes in the
book (in particular in chapters 1, 5, 6 and the references), which is appalling
for a book that costs over $100.

REFERENCES

Beaver, David and Cleo Condoravdi (2003): A uniform analysis of ''before'' and
''after'', in Rob Young and Yuping Zhou (eds), Proceedings of SALT XIII,
Cornell: CLC Publications, 37-54.

Chomsky, Noam (1995): The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Comrie, Bernard (1985): Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Glasbey, Sheila (1993): Distinguishing between events and times: some evidence
from the semantics of then. Natural Language Semantics 1, 285-312.

Kamp, Hans and Uwe Reyle (1993): From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Klein, Wolfgang (1994): Time in Language. London: Routledge.

Partee, Barbara (1984): Nominal and temporal anaphora, Linguistics and
Philosophy 7, 243-286.

Reichenbach, Hans (1947): Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: The Macmillan
Company.

Schiffrin, Deborah (1992): Anaphoric then: aspectual, textual, and epistemic
meaning. Linguistics 20, 753-792.

Thompson, Ellen (1996): The syntax of tense. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Linguistics, University of Maryland.

Uriagereka, Juan (1988): On government. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Linguistics, University of Connecticut at Storrs. 

ABOUT THE REVIEWER:


Judith Tonhauser is about to receive her Ph.D. in Linguistics from Stanford
University, and will join the faculty of the Linguistics department at the
Ohio State University in September 2006. Her research interests lie in
crosslinguistic syntax and semantics, with an empirical focus on American
indigenous languages. She has conducted fieldwork on Yucatec Maya (Mexico)
and Guarani (Paraguay), and has worked on the temporal interpretation of
noun phrases and of tenseless languages, the syntax and semantics of
questions and focus constructions, and voice and argument realization in
Mayan languages.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-17-2185