@cite{del-prete-2013} — Imperfectivity and Habituality in Italian #
Fabio Del Prete, ch. 8 of Genericity (Mari, Beyssade, Del Prete eds.), OUP, Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 43.
Core Claim #
The Italian Imperfetto (imperfective past) admits both habitual (HAB) and progressive (PROG) readings. The chapter's key empirical contribution is the Same-Object Effect (SOE): bare imperfectives with a singular indefinite in object position show an implication that the same object is involved across habitual events — e.g., "Gianni guidava un'auto sportiva" implies the same sports car each time. When this same-object reading is implausible (e.g., reading the same philosophy book repeatedly), HAB is blocked while PROG survives.
Chapter Sections Covered #
- §8.1: Introduction — HAB/PROG readings, temporal anchoring (exx. 1–3)
- §8.2: GEN analysis and its inadequacy for SOEs (exx. 4–10)
- §8.3: Bare plural objects and 'kind-coerced' singular indefinites (exx. 11–14)
- §8.4: Semantic framework — PBT, LCH, IMPF (exx. 15–27) [concepts only]
- §8.5: SOE for bare imperfectives (exx. 22–27) [concepts only]
- §8.6: SOE, Q-adverbs, and bare plurals (exx. 28–30) [data]
- §8.7: Oddness explained via common knowledge (principle (O))
- §8.8: Conclusion
Argument Structure #
Del Prete argues the standard covert-quantifier GEN analysis (§8.2) cannot account for the asymmetric distribution of SOEs across bare imperfectives and their adverbially-quantified/bare-plural counterparts, unless one makes stipulative assumptions about scope interactions between indefinites and GEN.
The proposed alternative (§8.4) is a non-quantificational, plurality-based analysis: HAB readings arise from event plurality under the Lexical Cumulativity Hypothesis (LCH; Kratzer 2008) combined with IMPF's forward-expansion of the reference time in a Partial Branching Time (PBT) model. The SOE is then derived as an entailment of the Sameness of Singular Participant principle (SSP), and the oddness of (2b) on HAB follows from the SOE conflicting with common knowledge (§8.7).
Connection to Existing Infrastructure #
ViewpointAspectB(Tense/Aspect/Core.lean): imperfective/perfective distinction. TheIMPFoperator formalizes the same TT⊂TSit relation that Del Prete uses as the starting point for his f-exp analysis.Fragments/Italian/Tense.lean:imperfettoTAMEEntry — the tense form that this chapter is about.@cite{boneh-doron-2013} (
BonehDoron2013.lean): Boneh & Doron's HAB/GEN distinction in ch. 6 of the same volume. Del Prete's analysis is explicitly built on their modal analysis of HAB (§8.4, eq. 41). Their English same-object data (exx. 6b, 7b) parallels Del Prete's Italian SOEs — formalized assameObjectParallelin BonehDoron2013.
The two readings available for the Italian Imperfetto.
@cite{del-prete-2013} §8.1: Imperfetto sentences "can have both habitual (HAB) and progressive (PROG) readings, in correlation with whether temporal anchoring is to a large or to a small reference time."
- hab : ImperfettoReading
Habitual: "Gianni used to read the newspaper." Temporal anchoring to a large reference time.
- prog : ImperfettoReading
Progressive: "Gianni was reading the newspaper." Temporal anchoring to a small reference time.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The type of the object NP, which determines SOE behavior.
@cite{del-prete-2013} §8.1, §8.3, §8.5: The crucial variable is whether the object is a singular indefinite (triggers SOE), a bare plural (no SOE, analyzed as kind-denoting), or a definite (no SOE).
- definite : ObjectType
Definite: "il giornale" (the newspaper)
- singularIndefinite : ObjectType
Singular indefinite: "un'auto sportiva" (a sports car)
- barePlural : ObjectType
Bare plural: "libri di filosofia" (philosophy books)
- none : ObjectType
No object (intransitive or PP complement)
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Whether a sentence displays a Same-Object Effect on its HAB reading.
@cite{del-prete-2013} §8.1, §8.5: Singular indefinites in object position under Imperfetto trigger SOEs — the object must be the same across habitual events. When this is implausible, the HAB reading is blocked.
- plausible : SOEStatus
SOE present and plausible (same object across events is natural).
- implausible : SOEStatus
SOE present but implausible (same object across events is odd).
- kindLevel : SOEStatus
Kind-level SOE: same kind of object, not same individual.
- absent : SOEStatus
No SOE (bare plural, definite, or no object).
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Ex. (1): "Gianni leggeva il giornale" — definite object, no SOE issue. Both HAB and PROG are fine.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Ex. (2a): "Gianni guidava un'auto sportiva" — singular indefinite, SOE plausible (one can habitually drive the same sports car). Both HAB and PROG are fine.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Ex. (2b): "Gianni leggeva un libro di filosofia" — singular indefinite, SOE implausible (reading the same philosophy book repeatedly is odd). HAB is blocked (#); only PROG survives.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Ex. (3): "Gianni fumava un sigaro toscano (il Toscanello)" — singular indefinite, but SOE is at the kind level (a kind of Tuscan cigar, not an individual cigar). HAB is fine because the kind-level SOE is plausible.
This is a key data point: SOEs can be satisfied at the kind level when the indefinite is coerced to a kind-reading.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Ex. (4a): "Gianni viaggia in treno" — bare habitual (present tense, no object). Both HAB and PROG available (here we record the generic habitual reading). No SOE issue (intransitive).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Ex. (11): "Gianni leggeva libri di filosofia" — bare plural object, no SOE. HAB is fine; PROG is marginal (#). Key contrast with (2b): bare plural rescues HAB.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Ex. (8)/(29): "Gianni leggeva sempre un libro di filosofia" — same predicate as (2b) but with Q-adverb sempre 'always'. HAB is now fine (✓). The Q-adverb provides a tripartite quantificational structure at LF (§8.6), so the singular indefinite scopes below the Q-adverb and no SOE arises.
This is the key contrast with (2b): adding sempre rescues HAB for the same sentence frame.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
All examples are imperfective (the chapter studies the Imperfetto).
The SOE contrast: when SOE is implausible, HAB is blocked. (2a) with plausible SOE → HAB ✓; (2b) with implausible SOE → HAB ✗.
The bare plural rescue: (2b) sing. indef. blocks HAB, but (11) bare plural with same predicate allows HAB.
The Q-adverb rescue (§8.6): "sempre" rescues HAB for the same sentence frame where bare Imperfetto blocks it. (2b) without Q-adverb: HAB ✗; (29) with sempre: HAB ✓.
The HAB/PROG complementarity for the SOE contrast: sing. indef. with implausible SOE: HAB ✗, PROG ✓ bare plural: HAB ✓, PROG ✗
Definite object: both readings available, no SOE.
Kind-level SOE: singular indefinite with kind coercion permits HAB because the SOE is satisfied at the kind level.
In bare imperfectives (without Q-adverbs), singular indefinites trigger SOEs while other object types do not. The Q-adverb case (8)/(29) is excluded: a singular indefinite under sempre scopes below the Q-adverb, so no SOE arises.
The two problematic scope assumptions that the GEN analysis must make to explain the SOE data.
@cite{del-prete-2013} §8.2, discussion around exx. (7)–(8): the GEN approach requires: (α1) Singular indefinites obligatorily scope above GEN (α2) Singular indefinites can scope below overt Q-adverbs
The problem is that GEN is supposed to be a phonologically silent version of sempre 'always', and should have the same syntactic properties — making (α1) and (α2) contradictory.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.Generics.Studies.DelPrete2013.alpha1 = { label := "α1", assumption := "Singular indefinites obligatorily scope above GEN", problematic := true }
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.Generics.Studies.DelPrete2013.alpha2 = { label := "α2", assumption := "Singular indefinites can scope below overt Q-adverbs", problematic := true }
Instances For
Both assumptions are needed but create a contradictory picture: GEN is supposed to be a covert sempre but doesn't behave like one with respect to scope of indefinites.
Key theoretical concepts from Del Prete's non-quantificational analysis (§8.4).
These are enumerated here for reference; full formalization would require substantial new infrastructure (PBT models, event structures with plural events, etc.).
- partialBranchingTime : TheoreticalConcept
Partial Branching Time (PBT): A model based on Kratzerian situations where every situation has a unique past but many possible futures. Histories are maximal chains of situations.
- forwardExpansion : TheoreticalConcept
Forward expansion (f-exp): The operation that expands a situation s forward in time, producing branches that represent expected continuations of s. Central to the lexical entry of IMPF.
- throughoutOperator : TheoreticalConcept
THR (Throughout): A topological operator that 'spreads out' a temporal property P over a situation s and its branches. IMPF is defined as: ⟦IMPF⟧ = λs.λP. THR(P, f-exp(s)).
- lexicalCumulativity : TheoreticalConcept
Lexical Cumulativity Hypothesis (LCH): Verbs can inherently refer to plural events (Kratzer 2008). This enables the non-quantificational analysis: plurality of events comes from the verb itself, not from a quantifier over situations.
- samenessOfSingularParticipant : TheoreticalConcept
Sameness of Singular Participant (SSP): If a plural event e has a singular individual x as theme, then every atomic subevent of e has x as theme. This derives the SOE as an entailment.
- distributionToSubevents : TheoreticalConcept
Distribution to Subevents: For kind-denoting themes, singular instances of the kind are distributed over atomic subevents of the plural event. This explains why bare plurals lack SOEs.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Principle (O) from §8.7: "If a sentence S has implications that conflict with common knowledge, then S is perceived as odd."
This pragmatic principle explains the asymmetric HAB availability:
(2a) "Gianni drove a sports car" — SOE (same car) is compatible with common knowledge (people do habitually drive one car). → HAB ✓
(2b) "Gianni read a philosophy book" — SOE (same book) conflicts with common knowledge (people don't repeatedly read the same philosophy book). → HAB perceived as odd (#).
The SOE itself is a semantic entailment of the analysis (via SSP); the oddness arises from a pragmatic conflict with common knowledge. This two-step explanation (semantic SOE + pragmatic filter) is the chapter's main result.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The oddness follows from common-knowledge conflict: no CK conflict → not odd; CK conflict → odd.
The two-step explanation: SOE is semantic (entailed by analysis),
oddness is pragmatic (CK conflict). Matches soe_blocks_hab.
Whether a given viewpoint aspect permits habitual readings.
Background observation: imperfective permits HAB; perfective does not. @cite{del-prete-2013} takes this as given — the chapter's contribution is analyzing HOW the Imperfetto gives rise to HAB readings via IMPF's forward expansion and event plurality.
Equations
Instances For
Imperfective permits habituals; perfective does not.
All examples use imperfective aspect and the aspect permits HAB.
The SOE phenomenon is cross-linguistic: English shows the same pattern. @cite{boneh-doron-2013} exx. (6b), (7b) in the same volume give the English counterparts:
- "A flower grew out of the tree trunk" (plausible SOE → ✓)
- "#Max killed a rabbit (repeatedly)" (implausible SOE → ✗)
This parallel is formalized in BonehDoron2013.sameObjectParallel.