aspects of objects

[Dick Hudson]

Re Miriam Butts' interesting message about strong and weak objects, I don't
think the link between syntax and aspect is that simple. Here are the
relevant bits of her message:

>   (1) Hans ate the/an apple  (telic --- achievement)
>   (2) Hans ate apples        (atelic -- activity)
>

>OBJtheta in fact must be taken to correspond to the Strong Object, and
>OBJ to the Weak Object. That is, OBJtheta is the more "normal" kind of
>object, in that it makes a semantic contribution to the clause in
>terms of telicity, specificity, etc., while the OBJ just hangs around
>being unmarked. OBJtheta is thus "the apple" in (1), and OBJ is
>"apples" in (2).
>

The assumption seems to be that when `the apple' or `an apple' is object it
is what Dowty calls the incremental theme - the thing whose state determines
the end-point of the activity (e.g. eating the apple is over when the apple
disappears, not when Hans disappears or is full). That's not so. 

a. `The apple' is not an incremental theme with non-telic verbs such as LOOK
AT. Is its GF different in different sentences according to the semantics of
the verb? 

b. Even with `ate', `the apple' as object needn't be the incremental theme.
Take (3).

(3) The maggot ate the apple until it burst.

This is telic, but it finishes when the maggot bursts, not when the apple is
no more. Similarly for other classic examples like (4) versus (5).

(4) John pushed the cart.  (atelic)
(5) John pushed the cart to the top of the hill. (telic)

Maybe these examples just illustrate my point a again - a definite object
need not be incremental theme.