 Okay, so I'm delighted, we're delighted to have here today Dr. Maria Arche, who's a senior lecturer in Spanish and second language acquisition at the University of Greenwich. And she has sort of a unique international background. Her PhD was a collaboration between the U.S. and Spain. So the research, she got to appreciate the Research Institute, Ortega and Gasset with Violetta de Monte and UCLA with Tim Stoll. And that led to her 2006 book, Individuals in Time, Tense Aspect and the Individual Stage Level Distinction. Recently she's been very productive and working on many topics such as argument structure and aspects and participles, viewpoint aspect and the imperfective and subject inversion in non-native Spanish. And so in general she's been working a lot on tense aspect and copular clauses, both in adult grammar and L2 grammars. And she's had a recent project on the Morpho syntax of adjectives, including organizing an international conference at the University of Greenwich. And as a small note for those who are interested in archives and corpora, she's also been involved in 2007-2008 in creating a learner's corpus of L2 Spanish at the University of Southampton. Okay, so today's, the original title of today's talk was very exciting to me because it was called On Incomplete Accomplishments. I thought, oh, she's gonna enlighten me and provide some positive spin on my entire life. But then she changed the title of the talk to Unperfective but Incomplete Situations, which I'm sure will be very interesting. It talks about several languages, including Spanish, Hindi, I think, and Salish. So thanks and we look forward to it. Right. Well, thank you for your generous words, Edward. And well, you forgot to mention that we also have a collaboration that has just started on copulas across languages. So hopefully we'll have something to report on soon. So thank you very much for making the time to come to this talk, to my talk. And yeah, as Edward said, as the title said, is talk about perfective but incomplete situations or about perfective and incomplete accomplishments because this is the kind of event types that I'm going to be focusing on. So the broader arena of the talk is the relationship between viewpoint aspect or grammatical aspect or outer aspect, however we may want to call it, and situation aspect, which is a topic that has been there for a very long time. The sentences and situations that I'm going to be focusing on today are situations and sentences that I started looking at very recently. So I don't have a firm proposal on them as yet. I just have a proposal which is very open at the moment. And what I'm going to give you is a constellation of facts that I think are convergent with some idea. But let's see how it goes and let's see what do you think. So as I said, I'm going to be talking and we are going to be looking at the relationship between perfectivity and accomplishments. So what relationship is in there? I'm going to focus on accomplishments, but I'm going to say something on achievements, but very briefly. As you know, accomplishments are those event types that require an endpoint. It's usually the classical definition. So we need a specific point, a turning point in which we can say or it becomes true to say that the situation has happened. So the situation has been substantiated. When we put that together with the perfective, which is the viewpoint according to which what we understand is that the situation is finished. More specifically, as I'm going to say in a couple of minutes, is the interval over which the situation has been developing is finished. Then when we couple those two things together, so we couple accomplishment semantics and perfectivity semantics, then what the typical reading that we obtain and what we expect to obtain is that the situation is finished. However, and this is what we are going to be looking at today, it seems that we can also have situations and sentences in different languages where we have a perfective, we have an accomplishment, but it is not contradictory to say that the situation has not been substantiated, it has not finished. This should create contradiction, but apparently it doesn't in many languages. I'm going to be focusing on Spanish, sorry, I'm going to just give you a few examples of Salishian languages and Hindi, where this phenomenon was documented before and I'm going to focus on Spanish because this is the language where I've been doing research most of the time. Right, so this is the quick overview and just to finish the quick overview. Unlike or in contrast to all the existing proposals at the moment which mostly focus and blame whatever is happening in the structure that has to do with the situation aspect, I'm going to focus on the viewpoint aspect part of the structure because I think that it may be the material that we have in that part of the structure is what may be responsible to give us this peculiar reading of yes it is finished, but it is not finished at the same time. Again, I cannot draw conclusions that are valid for every language, actually what I feel the more I read about this is that we may be giving the same label for this phenomena, but they may not be the same, so it may be just an optical illusion that we think that we are looking at the same and maybe because we have this tendency or I have this tendency because of the background of trying to allocate categories and phenomenon that I am familiar with from the Roman language tradition and then I look at another language and say hey look the interpretation is the same, maybe the categories involved are the same, maybe what is going on there is the same, but that may be quite unwarranted and unjustified. With a lot of caveats then, let's take a look at this since the beginning. If you get bored because some of the things I'm saying are too simple just stop me and the other way around if I'm using some term or if I say something that you feel that we should spend more time on just tell me as well. As we have the left-hand side of the first page because I complicated my life this so much by dividing the page in two, we have some working definitions and what we have in there is for starters the definition of viewpoint aspect that I've been taking in my work. Viewpoint aspect, grammatical aspect, outer aspect as the temporal category that gives information about whether the situation at hand has finished or it is about to start or is ongoing. Since I'm going to be focusing on the perfective, I'm going to be worried about the semantics that has to do with being finished. More specifically the model that I usually work with is the model by Klein and as it was developed in syntactic articulation by Demirdas and Uribe Chevarria in several works and their viewpoint aspect is conceived as a relation so as a predicate that puts or establishes a certain ordering relation between two intervals. Topic time which is the interval that the utterance is about and an event time which is the interval that the situation itself may extend over. The perfective viewpoint specifically is that one that establishes the relationship that we have in 1A on the handout. What happens with the perfective is that the topic time and the event time overlap completely. Due to that overlap of intervals the interpretation that obtains there is that the situation is finished. So the reading of being finished is a consequence of a specific ordering between intervals in this model. What we have in 2 is several examples from Spanish from different situation predicates. For example illustrating states activities, accomplishments and achievements just to show that perfective viewpoint in Spanish can appear with any event type. So there are no restrictions, prior restrictions of any kind. In a state like the Il Juan estuvo enfermo and activities such as walk by the beach which is already, it is also fine with the perfective and accomplishment paint the fence and an achievement such as find the needle Juan encontró la ruja which is 2D. Well in all of them what we understand is that the period of time during which the event took place is over. In all of them the interpretation, the temporal interpretation with respect to viewpoint aspect is the same and what we understand is that whatever was going on is over, the moment is finished. And with TILIC predicates as I anticipated earlier it is also typically understood that the relevant point needed for the situation to be substantiated has been reached. In the case of the accomplishment of 2C Juan pintó la valla what we understand is that whatever Juan needed to do so that we can say that he painted the fence has happened. So for this reason we can say that perfective accomplishments in Spanish typically give the interpretation of the situation has culminated. However, as I have also mentioned in the introduction, accomplishments in the perfective in general have been found to refer to incomplete situations as well and this is what is called at least recently in the literature incomplete accomplishments or non-cuminating accomplishments. There has been not much research about them with respect to romance languages or what we might call European languages or romance languages in particular and it's been very recent that different authors are looking at some situations that may deserve the label of non-cuminating accomplishments. We'll look at the situations and the sentences, the examples and the cases that they provide to see these and I will tell you about my questions about them. Well, but to give a definition of what a non-cuminating accomplishment is taken to mean is what we have in there in both face non-cuminating accomplishments typically referred to predicates that qualify as accomplishments. So obviously the first step always is to rule out the possibility that we are dealing with an activity, that we are dealing with something that is not tillic. They appear in the perfective form but they do not entail culmination. That is to say there is no contradiction with the claim that they have not finished. This is unexpected under classical tenets but is a phenomenon that has been documented for a large and extensive variety of languages. The first one to the best of my knowledge was Hindi with Moana sign in 1998 and I think that the best known example comes from that work which is the example that we have in three. An example such as Maya ate the cookie but did not finish it. She did not finish it. It's been found phenomena along the same lines have been found in Chinese as well. Lilluit and Squamish and Salish and languages and in Thai and Russian. I have put some examples from Lilluit Salish and Thai. Lilluit Salish are the examples that we have in four and five. So the example four is I fixed a fence but I did not finish. And there is no contradiction there according to the authors. These examples are taken from Liora Barrel and Lisa Mathison and Henry Davies work. The same for example number five. I ate my cake today but I saved a little for tomorrow. The sentence describes a situation in which the person is saying that she ate the cake but if she is saving something for tomorrow it's because she cannot have finished it, finished the cake. Very similar what we have, well not very similar as we are going to see next, but apparently similar what we have in Thai. Another kind of example that has been reported as a case of evidence for a non-cuminating accomplishment with the semi-perfectives of Thai. That is the label that Kenin and one through one give to this kind of perfective because it is a perfective marker but it doesn't entail culmination of the accomplishment. So we can have things such as through recomposed a poem or the poem, the gloss is theirs, but has not finished it yet. So again, similar kind of situation. What we have now in seven, eight and nine are examples from Spanish where what we have is, well what you have there, something like Pedro pintó la valla durante un rato pero no la terminó, so Pedro painted the fence for a while but he didn't finish it. Or Marta colored a castle for ten minutes but she did not finish it. Or Juan emptied the pool for a good while but he didn't finish. He did not finish. Among the things that I can tell you now, advance you now that we are going to be talking about is about the role of this for a while that I'm sure you have caught your attention already and we are going to see what kind of role it plays and whether we want to maintain that the whole event type is an accomplishment or not. That kind of discussion and I'm very, I welcome questions in this regard very willingly. So these are the examples that I was, I'm going to be looking at. And first step, we see that the predicate itself complies with telecity test. So when we apply the in-time test to something like paint the fence, we get it right because we can say Pedro painted the fence in an hour. And the same with the perfect entailment from the progressive. Pedro was painting the fence, the perfect entailment does not hold. So the entailment from the progressive doesn't hold. So we cannot say that Pedro has painted the fence. Now what I'm going to bring now is all the questions and all the issues that I have in mind with respect to these cases. So what we see here or the feeling I have at the moment is that in thus far we were looking at these cases from Hindi which was, at least to me, the best known example, we were looking at these cases as something very awkward. So it was something surprising, something that we didn't expect, something unexpected, something quite isolated. And now I've seen an explosion of cases and in every language we seem to be finding non-communicating accomplishments. So my first question is whether they are all the same. Right, are they all the same? Are they all non-communicating accomplishments of the same kind? And also whether the restrictions that may hold are of the same kind as well, across languages. With respect to whether all the non-communicating accomplishments are of the same kind, so whether all are the same, there's been the distinction that we have on the right-hand side of the page too, middle part of the page, types of non-communication accomplishments. We have some distinctions that some authors such as Demir Das and Maktan are having doing lately, so they distinguish between zero result and partial result. So when we say that non-communication is at hand, is it that nothing has happened or something has happened but it hasn't been completed. I mean to my ear that is the partial culmination is what to me intuitively is closer to what we can call non-communication because if it is at zero, then it's not that it didn't culminate, it's that it didn't start or even, you know, so we have nothing there. But that is the distinction that they make and all the authors as we have there, Tatebosov, Antivanov and all the authors distinguish between the failed attempt reading and the partial success reading. So the zero culmination reading just to start tidying up the data from Spanish we see in 13 that does not hold. So because the way that this reading in theory is tested is by saying something like he colored the castle or painted the fence but he didn't color anything. And this would be 13A in Spanish, the judgments are for the Spanish example. And the sentence is odd, it's not possible. We cannot say that he did something but he didn't do anything. So he colored the castle but he didn't color anything. It's not a possibility in Spanish. I have to apologize if I am a bit untidy in following the handout but I'll try not to be too much. In opposition to zero culmination, we have in 13, we have 14, I'm going to leave defensible causatives for the last part for the question period maybe. So what contrasts with zero culmination is the partial culmination and this is what seems to be available in Spanish. This is the reading that we understand when we are in front of or we are parsing sentences of the kind of 14. So he colored the castle for a little while but he didn't finish. He was engaging the activity of coloring the castle. So the end point would have been to finish coloring the castle, so to have colored the whole castle but he didn't get there. He didn't get there because he stopped earlier. And that reading is what, at least as a working idea, I have adopted and said, well, then if this is an uncliminating accomplishment, then up to some extent they seem to exist also in Roman languages such as Spanish. In this regard, I wanted to make a comment and maybe here we can discuss a little bit because for some authors say that, such as Demir Dasch and Maktan in their work they say that partial culmination is virtually always available and possible. Whenever you have a scalar predicate, when you can detect a scale, then that is going to be possible. But the example that they give is the one that we have here. I'm going to read it in English only. The water of the rain fills the bucket, although not completely. And with these examples I have some conflict because I don't know if what is happening there is something different. So I think that with predicates like this we can say that what happens is that we may have different points of culmination possible. So the predicate can be said to have culminated at different stages, at different points of the scale. This is pretty much what Bore has argued for cases like inflate a balloon or fill the pillow with feathers. You can always fill the pillow with more and more feathers but that is not contradictory with saying that there was a point previously in time in which we could say truthfully that I had filled the pillow with feathers. And I found that conceptually maximal point may not be the only point in which we can rely to say that the situation has happened, that the accomplishment has happened. And I found similar things also for copular clauses in Spanish. For example when we say, because I was working in Spanish in my copular clauses. And then I was thinking about the semantics of something like Antonio Stavorato. So Johnny's drunk or Antonio is drunk. If I think about drunk, you can always be more drunk, right? So I can be very drunk, but if I keep drinking I can become more drunk. But that doesn't mean that before I was only partially drunk. So half an hour earlier on I could have been drunk. And I might not have reached the maximum possible because, you know, I can always make matters worse and carry on drinking and becoming more and more drunk. But the key, the key point for me is that that doesn't make the stage of before as a partial drunkness. It is different. It is that I can put the line for drunkness in different parts of the scale. So here, I mean my bit actually is very low. So say with three beers I'm already drunk and if I drink five I can be more drunk. But again, it's not that before I was only partially drunk and I left my completion of drunkness and finished. No, because I was already drunk, right? So, yeah, that is an idea that I don't know how to accommodate with the description that I find for these cases with the scalar predicates. That is why I don't know how much they are non-kilminating accomplishments or what is going on is something different in there. I don't know. Maybe you can tell me later as well. Right, so let me say something now about the failed attempt reading, but I'm going to save a bit more for five minutes later. So we have seen or I have said that for the moment as I work in idea, I have adopted this idea that in Spanish, yes, we have something that can be called non-kilminate accomplishment and the reading that we have there is a partial success reading or a partial culmination reading because the canonical case that I have in mind or that I have had in mind this month is that there is a castle, for example, that whose coloring can be completed but can be left uncompleted. And all that is expressed in the perfective. Now, for the failed attempt reading as such, I haven't found it in Spanish. I don't think it exists as such and the oddness of the sentences is marked in 26A. So, yeah, what we have before 26, no, I meant 16, sorry. I was hearing people turning pages and I said, I think I haven't. Okay, so my fault. 16A is Pedro abrió la caja fuerte durante una hora pero no lo consiguió. So an achievement for which is the kind of predicates that are argued in the literature to give rise to the failed attempt reading does not happen in Spanish as far as I can see. So Pedro abrió la caja fuerte durante una hora pero no lo consiguió. He opened the security box for an hour but he didn't manage to open it. It's not a good sentence. It's not good. It's odd. Now, the hypothesis that I'm going to present here, that I'm going to argue for, that I'm going to say, you know, let's try. So what if what were going on for these cases was the following. So for cases for Pedro, Carlos, a castle for a while, but he didn't finish, is that what is allowing for this reading of incompletion has to do with elements or categories that belong to viewpoint aspect. So the interval is finished but the event itself is not. And the idea that I have taken or that I have capitalized on to lead me on this is the fact, so not the idea, the fact that all the examples that we have between seven and nine, Pedro, Carlos, the castle and painted defense, these examples are all paraphrases or they can have a paraphrase or a paraphrase of the sort of what we have in 1921. This was a misfortune of the two columns, things that didn't come right. So 19 to 21, what we have is exactly the same sentences. So painting, the predicates are paint defense, color the castle and empty the pool with what can be called an analytical, perfective, progressive. So what we have in there, if we focus now on 19, is Pedro estuvo pintando la valla durante un rato, so Pedro was perfective, painting defense for a while but he didn't finish. Or he didn't finish it. That is the interpretation that I get, that natives get when we, from the perfective clauses, so Pedro painted defense for a while but he didn't finish, is what we would paraphrase by saying, yes, what that means is that he was painting defense for a while but he didn't finish. But crucially what we need is the perfective on the auxiliary. With the imperfective, we are talking about something completely different and it would never be an incomplete accomplishment in itself. So we would be looking at what we can say that is a regular imperfective, where we have a situation ongoing, the interval is ongoing, the interval that we are referring to is ongoing and of course the situation is not finished, is happening. But they are not the same as perfective progressives because with perfective progressives what is very clear is that the interval that we are referring to is finished. So I cannot say he was perfective painting defense when I arrived or things like that which are the canonical cases for imperfective progressive. He was doing that when I saw her and this kind of thing. Right, so well relying or led by this parallelism between these two forms that seem to mean the same in this context. What I proposed was that maybe what is happening with these perfectives that are giving us these non-culminating readings, blah, blah, blah, is that that is what we have in the morphology, in the morphology but what we may have in the semantics and the syntax may be a perfective progressive. So the perfective progressive is just an analytical form and the perfective is the synthetic form. In this case the idea is as simple as okay what if with the perfective what we had was exactly the same as what we have with the imperfective forms that we know that in Roma's languages and certainly in Spanish you have an imperfective form morphologically with our morpheme that is imperfective past but the interpretation of that morpheme can be of different sorts so it can be a progressive in the semantics and I would say adopting the syntactic frameworks that what we have in the syntax and semantics there is the syntax and semantics of a progressive, the imperfective morpheme can also have the habitual semantics and maybe what we have underlying there is a different syntax and different semantics and the other meanings that the imperfective can have are the continues, the ability reading and all that. So maybe because I was I don't know if biased or it was because I'm so used to see all these in the imperfective and say well yeah so I have one form but that doesn't mean that I have only one syntax and semantics underneath I may have more than one so maybe this is what happens with the perfective that sometimes what I have is as we have on page four in the specification of the trees what we have when I have an analytical form is a different syntax semantics no the same syntax semantics as what we have in the synthetic form and this is what we have in 22B so I don't know if I entangled myself a little bit so the idea is which may not be part I mean may not be the whole story I don't think this is the whole story but at the moment I feel that I don't want to discard it because maybe this is what may explain some of the cases I have two different forms morphological forms so two different forms on the surface I have a perfective and I have a progressive perfective and then the underlying syntax and semantics may be the same so this is what we have in the trees of 22, 22A and 22B the only thing in which these trees are different is in what happens with explicit morphology so in 22A we have everything there but in 22B we don't have morphology corresponding to the lower aspect head that is within which is the one of the progressive as you can see one step that I needed to propose for this was that the syntax and semantics of aspects but the syntax of aspects may be more complex than I had envisaged before so looking at analytical forms such as these ones estuvo colorando so was perfective which contrasts with the was imperfective forms then I felt that I needed to register I needed to capture the perfectivity versus the imperfectivity of the auxiliary which to me that meant that well but maybe what I have is one aspect well head that is in charge of this part of the construction so we have some node in charge of that contrast imperfectivity versus perfectivity and then the progressive can be lower down in the tree and that part would be the same for both for the imperfective progressive and the perfective progressive I was going to say something else yeah so one consequence of looking at things like this way is that well but then from here we see that progressivity is not necessarily linked or tied to imperfectivity right progressivity can also appear in perfective perfective configurations or perfective structures as we have here in 22 for for I mean not for me to capture but yeah I mean yeah for me to capture the or one or something that I saw reflected clearly in the interpretation of these forms in which what I what has finished is the the moment in which they were developing but the event itself didn't finish but a part of it was was to well to rely on this on explicit definitions of telecity that take made on the basis of heterogeneity right so on parts where as I mean many others have done that I only put an explicit an explicit definition on page three that you may be very familiar with from border based on Krifka so telecity has to do with the with involving parts and then if because I've been obsessed about this part thing that was completed and what makes you tillic is having different parts rather than being finished or culminated or not but this characteristic of having parts and that is what would make an accomplishment different from an activity where parts are different or not so far so good or is there any question at the moment no can I carry on good so these proposal that we have illustrated with the syntactic trees on page four is as I as I have written them down there this proposal contrasts very much with previous analysis because analysis as far as I know thus far have located the source of the issue in the stem of the verb so the way that the issue was conceived and was being considered was to say well okay so maybe if we have an accomplishment and then at the end of the day in interpretation what happens is that it has not finished or it has not been substantiated completely then what may happen is that that telecity germ was removed in the middle of the derivation so there's the verbs started as tillic and then something happened in the middle and then they became a tillic so to speak right and this is what we have at the bottom of page bottom of left hand side of on the left hand side of page four and at the top of the right hand side for for solution languages the the possibility of having a non-kilminating accomplishment apparently correlates with the existence of of an agent control transit divisor so what it's observed for those languages is that if the sentence has an agent then we non-kilmination is a possibility versus having subjects that cannot be called agentive right this is something very interesting to which we will return later on but as we have there what they argue is that the completion requirement is removed in the middle of the derivation if something else is added for Kinen and Tatevoso for example they say that accomplishments may contain what they call an imperfective and a maximal operator that bias the predicate towards imperfectivity okay so I think that would if I understand correctly what they may be trying to also say is that they seem to want this to be restricted to the whatever belongs to the event area so it's something that has to do with the event so with the situation aspect and has to do with the verb itself with the information that the verbs have the same time they say that it may contain imperfectivity which is I understand that this has to do with with this fact that is not finished and because imperfectivity is the opposite to perfectivity then imperfectivity maybe something maybe doing something in there right the difference between that and what what I am proposing in pencil is that in as I said in my proposal the imperfectivity business is clearly located in viewpoint area of the structure and here they speak about imperfectivity but is still in a level in which what is supposedly to be happening belongs to the situation aspect area right so maybe the intuition that everybody has is not so different because we all seem to mention imperfectivity but in very different ways in very different ways right so what I'm going to start doing now if that is okay is talking about the refinements and the factors that restrict the reading in in Spanish right because it is not that I can in in Spanish we can say Pedro painted the fence but he didn't finish and then the sentence is fine no we there seem to be some restrictions the first restriction is the one that the one I mentioned before has to do with the presence of an explicit temporal modifier which is the four plus time modifier the four ten minutes for a while etc. the semantics of the verb so the meaning of the verb seems to play a role as well and as for the role of the agent something may be going on as well as well which again good put all these languages in a similar arena but then I think that the difficult thing is to pinpoint all the different all the details in in in in in in a clear manner right what we have in 24 is the the modification of the temporal of the topic time so as I said if I say something like Pedro painted the fence but he didn't finish in 25 a Pedro paint paint all the way up and let me know is odd however and this is something that I don't know why and how I mean I cannot explain however as we have in 26 when we have the the perfective progressive paraphrase in analytical form I don't need the the modifier right so Pedro is to open tando la valla pero no la terminal is perfectly fine the interpretation is the interpretation we want that he's been engaged in an activity that had a conceptual limit there but he interrupted it halfway but we don't need the modifier so this could be very clean but this is not a full perfective anymore right so that obviously raises questions for the as for the clarity and the cleanness of the parallelism between the perfective form and the perfective progressive right and I don't know what I mean I see the problem I don't know how to solve it right for types of verbs and this is something that is interesting as well not all verbs give us equally fine sentences across the board so even with the presence of the modifier right so what I saw in this regard is that and that's what we have in 28 the viability of the sentences depends on the dichotomy between that exists between creation verse versus non creation verse which has to do with entailment of the existence of not of the of the object as we are going to see in some examples so it seems that verbs of creation are not good even with this modifier so we don't have to go through all the examples but if we consider only 130 a Pedro construyon castillo durante un tiempo pero no lo terminó Pedro built a castle for a while but he didn't finish it is very odd is is not natural I mean is we cannot swallow it like that these are create creation verbs now when the sentence speaks about a creation according to a previously existing idea we expect a contrast a contrast to happen between definite and indefinite articles and this is what we see so in 31 a if I say something like Pedro construyo el castillo que tenía en mente durante un tiempo pero no lo terminó so he built the castle he had in mind for a while but he didn't finish it when we say the castle that he had in mind we we have created an object that has a culmination that we can identify and then the sentence is fine again it's fine again all performance creation verbs that's the label that pinion gives to these verbs in in in a work when do this when these words that describe the creation of a performance are always right so he recited the poem for 10 minutes but he didn't finish or he sang the song for 10 minutes or he played famous example she played this sonata for 10 minutes but she didn't finish it because so in all these cases we have again the clear concept of where exactly the the situation should have finished so all these are ok are always ok and they are very very very natural verbs of non creation as we have been using since the beginning are ok so Pedro color the castle for a while is ok she painted the triangle for 10 minutes but he didn't finish it is ok so on so forth so non creation verbs deal the best form sentences and here because these contrast that has to do with being a creation or versus a non creation verb seems to play a role and because this is what it is in these verbs where we also see the cases where the imperfective paradox turns up then again I don't have a film proposal about this but this may be like another converging fact in favor of saying that there may be a progressive somewhere there doing doing something and that is why the what gives us the con the the line of what is possible and what is not maybe the progressive maybe the progressive are you giving me time is that what I have left five ten minutes ok fine five ok ok ok ok so regarding the creation component of the contrast if it plays a role at all it seems as we have on page six that we cannot say that something was brought to a to an existence partially for a little while and when the analytical form is in place however again all these factors seem to play no role anymore so this is another bothering fact or at least bothering for me at the moment because when we have the explicit analytical form this contrast disappears and vanishes so thirty eight a thirty eight a pedros tubo construyendo un castillo pero no lo terminó it's fair it's fine it's fine so here it doesn't seem that he needed to have a castle in mind where we can identify a potential end point however everything is fine so although I still want to see what happens about this parallelism between the perfective form and the perfective progressive form this is another scenario where up to what point they are paraphrase of each other is slightly unclear because we don't get a clean picture okay the picture is is not clean it is very clean with activities for example it's always the same and that's what we have in thirty nine pedro camino por el parque when pohol carro he walked by the park or around the park or he pushed the cart are perfectly fine and we are we have no restrictions we don't need anything and and it's fine so if in some cases this is my this is the the conflict I have if in some cases like in activities what we see is a very clean and direct parallelism between perfective and perfective progressive I I feel that I can say that well they can be said to be synonymous up to up to a larger extent but then what else is happening with the component that accomplishments bring I mean and in that regard I think that well progressive is a very annoying viewpoint right because it gives us I don't fully understand it I have to say and it gives us wrong sentences depending on event types but at least in Spanish and at least as far as I've been looking and looking and looking and looking at is the only viewpoint that seems to be quirky with respect to what event type he goes with and I doesn't that I don't in principle like because I would like to think that view po situation aspect is something that happens in some part of the structure and then viewpoint aspect should be free to join whatever comes in the tree because why these business of intervals has to interfere with what an event is with the nature of an event and the one that gives the problems is the progressive the progressive is the one that gives us the states that sound very bad you know as much as sometimes I force myself to yeah yeah yeah that has to mean something and and we are able to get an interpretation that is different from a non-progressive form with a state but still restrictions seem to be there and maybe although that is something that I cannot explain and I I haven't found any proposal that fully satisfies me either but maybe this is an it's a negative thing but it's positive in the sense that if this is giving me trouble maybe it is because there is a progressive there because that is the element that usually gives me trouble with this when I want to put event types and viewpoint aspect together habituality never gives us problems ability readings even we can we can get with no problem it is the progressive that I feel is the more troublesome one and also again the progressive is what usually gives trouble trouble for in some cases that I never understood completely either with respect to the agency or the animacy of the subject so for example as we have and with this I will finish and I will leave it here 43 we have something like it was difficult to find natural examples so examples where all these made a bit of sense but an example like 43 a the sun the colored the fence for ten days to for the speakers I have asked is is not a good sentence so although it is okay to say John the colored the fence for ten days but he didn't finish so he was engaged in in that process of of removing all the color of the fence and then that is perfectly fine and natural when I change it to something that is not animate and has no agency this sentence sounds very very very odd again I don't understand why for two reasons and I don't have an account or an explanation in two respects one because I don't understand why animacy has to do with the progressive but again these if again we it is here again that we see that these two items in conflict when we have their progressive maybe that is because I have a progressive you know bothering us there the classical example is about this is I put the super classical example from party in 45 the boys are being noisy is is very natural the river is being noisy is an example that almost nobody likes right but we can say the river is noisy so it's not a problem of attributing noisiness to a river is a problem of the progressive in itself that seems to have to do with agency but I have another problem the last problem I'm going to mention has to do with the contrast between imperfective and perfective because 46a el sol estaba decoloriendo la valla in which what I have is a progressive as well I have clear analytical form with a progressive there with an ing is perfectly fine so I cannot conclude from all the above that it is the progressive I mean that part of the structure of the semantics that is giving me the trouble because here is not giving me any trouble and the sentences is okay in 46a so I don't know because it is only the perfective progressive that sounds degraded as we have in 47a el sol estubo decoloriendo la valla is not good I mean it's not good so it seems to be this combination of being perfective and being progressive as a whole that gives the trouble so it's not that I can blame the progressive alone there must be something else something else that I haven't identified yet but it has to do with the things and with being to finish and leave it here and with being an accomplishment because when we have an activity then the perfective progressive with the inanimate subject is perfectly fine again and this is what we have and find in 48 the rumor was perfective circulating for two months it's fine so to conclude I would say non-culminating accomplishments may be said to exist in Spanish up to a certain extent or at least is something that we may want to continue exploring and see what happens in there the interpretations that we get is that the action is interrupted and that may have an obvious link with the need of having an agent there so it has to be a volitional event what we have at hand maybe the result of a syntactic perfective progressive but I have shown you all the buts about that and yeah so here is a proposal with it it's buts thank you so there's time for questions thank you for your presentation and for the question that you've already asked us I wanted to ask about the context of these sentences so the ones that you comparing the ones that are perfective and perfective progressive in which context of a use and are they used naturally in so how does the context different differ between those or are they used interchangeably within situations or how is that you know why why this how are they synonymous and to what extent I thought you question ready but in respect to the context yeah so the frequency and whether the perfective ones or the perfective progressive is a form that is felt as awkward that's the yeah yeah then how natural they are everything being in place so if I have the right predicate and I have my modifier there I don't have any preference for any so both are completely natural to me they are both very good sentences to me now a different step of that question I mean a different sub question there is how much more is native speakers use the analytical form in general and that would apply also for the imperfective progressive and that may vary across the speakers and I would say tentatively that we prefer to use the analytical form which which is makes a difference between Spanish and Italian for example it in Italian where the imperfective form has the progressive meaning it is found that in frequency the the synthetic imperfective is used at very high rates and in Spanish we don't have that but it's not that I can you know give that kind of headline because it really depends on where for example if them I'm really I was restricted in this part of the answer to simple clauses okay but if I have compound temporal clauses such as when when Maria entered Pedro was washing her clothes or when Maria was writing Pedro was reading so when Maria imperfective read read no read imperfective past so when she was reading he was writing in that context I would say that both are equally natural so the the analytical form and the synthetic form yeah also for the imperfective for the perfective I haven't looked at data from corpora to measure actual numbers and rates what I'm giving you is only I'm very poorly my impression of a reflection of my own usage and to me both sound equally natural but I may have a tendency to use the analytical form slightly more in general for the progressive imperfective and for the perfective progressive question about the examples 25 and 26 24 I mean it seems like in 25 the word of modifier sort of coerces the progressive reading and I know it's not that you don't get it I was wondering if there's any sense in which maybe the language is changing or there's variation or something that maybe pushing people in a direction that if you have some other if you have some trigger for the reading it may shine or that there might be some competition between forms that is neutralized when when you have another I think that if not coercing maybe what is doing is limiting or well not limiting here because you don't have the reading for starters but something similar maybe what happens with the imperfective when we have an imperfective with no modifiers out of the blue one we are just looking at the sentence in itself by itself we may say that we can have three different readings but in the minute in which we plug in a modifier then all the other readings may disappear right if I put a frequentative quantifier she washed the her clothes and that can be progressive that can be even ability that can be habitual but if I put every day then all the other readings disappear what is not exactly the same case because here what happens is that when you plug in what this modifier the reading emerges so it it makes it happen and I suppose maybe in that case of 25 a I was sort of wondering is is it just could it be that you're less permissive than somebody else from that reading might have emerged even without the modifier or is the modifier that may be but it is my impression based on all the native speakers I've passed these sentences to that at this minute of the language people do not like these sentences in general so I haven't found a significant difference in the judgments of the speakers it's not that I found all 50 people like it and 50 well I didn't ask that many to be fair but it's not 50 50 it was it was closer to 90% of now with the quantifier no but with the quantifier I mean the modifier sorry for a while they liked it they they liked it this sorry no no no that's fine I was just going to add that the semantics and the consequences of modifiers are just for a while as they are tricky right because this is a modifier that only goes with perfective and then Spanish is easy to test because we have the different the two different forms and it is forbidden with with imperfective you have to have a perfective which makes me wonder where in the structure that can be located if it is modifying viewpoint and I need to have a specific viewpoint aspect form to license it but I know that other authors have argued that this kind of modifiers modifier main course the predicate and make it non-tilic anymore I have considered that possibility and what I feel is that I don't feel so when I have the for a while it's not that I feel that parts the predicate understood as a predicate that has parts is lost it's not that I all of a sudden have a mass in the predicate without distinguishable parts I still have the parts is just that I have stopped doing but maybe I'm missing something I was also looking at the data that feels like semantic analysis might be interesting as well and one thing I was thinking of is there's a 90s paper on a special shift that type coercion but it's sort of similar examples and he then decides to do the coercion analysis and I think and said that so I guess it's a contrast but then in particular context with these modifiers for example you are allowed to aspectually shift and get different readings but that would mean indeed that there's one underlying semantics and that gets shifted to a particular contextual contribution which allows the shift but it would tie in with the diaconic story as well because that would be much much easier to handle the particular conditions under which you can do the coercion you can imagine that changes about time to become like supervised but I don't know the data at all but I think that might be interesting and then again I mean this is this is categorical but it would not be hard to implement it Thank you, thank you, yeah, yeah because it would be interesting to see why then you can coerce only with some things but not others, right? because that is the conflict that I also usually have with coercion is how it's very powerful but how can I control it and here it doesn't seem to be able to operate in all cases so but yeah thank you it would be very interesting to see how that could be implemented and how the restrictions can be formulated That's what he's talking about as well but he has some thoughts although I don't think that might be interesting Thank you Is there any other question? And Rachel Thank you for your talk, I'm in awe of how you dealt with such a complex subject and I hope I'm going to formulate my question as coherently I wanted to ask more about bird classes so you differentiate between birds of creation and birds of non-creation but whether you made further distinctions between other sorts of accomplishments I'm thinking in particular even these sort of non-creation they're sort of scalar insofar as we're going from one point I'm thinking of something like repair so you can sort of fill around with something all day long and not really get any further along repairing it for example would that be for example a candidate for the zero culmination in Spanish? No because I cannot say well yeah I mean I guess we could say La estuve reparando pero no repare nada No I mean I would never say that I mean what does that mean because if I said that the person next to me would come and say So what did you do? It really feels like a contradiction so estuve reporándola No but that's interesting because it is the semantics of that verb it's vague in the sense that we don't exactly know what the person is doing and it refers to the internal steps right and reparar is the overarching result No thank you thank you thank you this is very interesting because the typology of verbs so a finer refined idea of what verbs allow for these and not is I haven't done it and I haven't found it I mentioned in the beginning the verbs that some authors have been looking at and it is these verbs that they call defensible causatives but the sentences to me feel very different so the cases that they talk about are I taught her Russian but she didn't learn anything So there they argue for a zero accomplishment and it doesn't seem contradictory because you can teach someone but the person at the other end may not be getting anything but those examples which come from the work that Fabienne McDonnell is doing with Florian Schaffer are very interesting because we find the contrast had been identified long ago as well there seems to be a contract with respect to agentivity because while you can say she taught me Russian but I didn't learn anything it's okay but that book taught me Russian but I didn't learn anything It's awkward as well I haven't spoken about the defensible causatives because I don't I feel that I mean there is something different maybe going on there rather than this I fixed the fence but I didn't finish fixing it while when we have teaching and learning I already see that I have two different creatures there You mentioned Russian and I am a Russian speaker some examples that you gave in Spanish were completely awkward not even in Russian with perfective aspects even with the fence and stuff like that how could you have painted it like in perfective for a while I can't say it in Russian but then some phrases I think that the reference to Russian actually isn't Al Shuler there I'll give you the reference it's about the opposite it's about having imperfective marking that can refer to completed occasions well that's what the author says now the example I have it here so the example is something like our father came home and blah blah blah and he left a little while later and that came appears marked in imperfective I don't want to say things that are distorted so I would prefer to show you the example later on but it falls within the same kind of discussion because it has to do with completion interpretations that are not expected once with respect to the classical tenets exactly I will show you the example later because oh here it is my father was coming to our house now father came to our place father came to our place and the marking is imperfective imperfective marking it has to us arrive in perfective past father father would come or came to our place I can show you later yeah I guess nobody has any more questions I think if you would like to continue with the discussion that Maria is available afterwards go over to the institute as the custom thank you