Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.Generics.Studies.DelPrete2013

@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 #

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 #

  1. ViewpointAspectB (Tense/Aspect/Core.lean): imperfective/perfective distinction. The IMPF operator formalizes the same TT⊂TSit relation that Del Prete uses as the starting point for his f-exp analysis.

  2. Fragments/Italian/Tense.lean: imperfetto TAMEEntry — the tense form that this chapter is about.

  3. @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 as sameObjectParallel in 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

          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

              An Italian imperfective datum from @cite{del-prete-2013}.

              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

                                  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 ✗

                                  Kind-level SOE: singular indefinite with kind coercion permits HAB because the SOE is satisfied at the kind level.

                                  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
                                      Instances For
                                        Equations
                                        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

                                                      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

                                                        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.