Modeling progress: causal models, event types, and the imperfective paradox

Elitzur Bar-Asher Siegal, Prerna Nadathur

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionpeer-review

Abstract

Under progressive marking, telic predicates can describe events that fail to reach culmination. Prominent accounts of this so-called "imperfective paradox" tie the effect to the modal accessibility of culmination, intensionalizing the progressive operator so that it instantiates qualifying (culminated) eventualities across a set of alternatives to the evaluation world. This approach faces a number of empirical challenges, including the acceptability of progressives of unlikely or locally out-of-reach events. This paper proposes a new approach, on which telic progressives are instead sensitive to (mereological) structure inherited from an event type associated with telic predicate P. An event type constitutes a formal causal model (e.g., Pearl 2000) in which P's culmination condition C occurs as a dependent or caused variable. The model provides a set of causal pathways for realizing C, each of which comprises a set of jointly sufficient causal conditions for C, and also establishes (sets of) conditions which preclude C. On this approach, the progress of an actual token P-eventuality can be measured with respect to the event type. A reference time situation s satisfies PROG(P) just in case it is a plausible cross-section of an incomplete causal pathway in Ps must verify some but not all the conditions in a causal pathway for C, and fail to verify a sufficient set of conditions for non-culmination.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationProceedings of the 40th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics
EditorsJiayi Lu, Erika Petersen, Anissa Zaitsu, Boris Harizanov
Place of PublicationSomerville, MA
PublisherCascadilla Proceedings Project
Pages254-264
Number of pages11
StatePublished - 2024

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Modeling progress: causal models, event types, and the imperfective paradox'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this