<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="J88-2004">
  <Title>ASPECT, ASPECTUAL CLASS, AND THE TEMPORAL STRUCTURE OF NARRATIVE</Title>
  <Section position="12" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="ackno">
    <SectionTitle>
NOTES
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> 1. I am grateful to Rebecca Passonneau for detailed comments on an earlier version, and to Bonnie Webber for many discussions and painstaking editorial work. Conversations with Wayles Browne, Donka Farkas, Tom Myers and Mark Steedman have been helpful in clarifying my views (which is not to claim that clarity has been achieved). Patricia Ryan of Colgate has made it possible for me and the deadline to meet. Work on the paper was mostly done during a study leave granted by Colgate.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> 2. It was pointed out to me (cf. also Comrie 1976) that modern technology, and in particular slow motion movies, can spread out instantaneous events so that one can imagine somebody saying Look, he's blinking! or He's beginning to blink! in reference to a protracted individual blink on the screen. I don't think this abolishes the durational basis for the notion of instantaneous events: they're still treated differently than noninstantaneous ones, and the above sentences refer to an event on the screen, not a real-life blink. We wouldn't want to say that just because we can produce a hugh image of a mosquito we no longer think of it as something small, or that the phrase No larger than a mosquito can no longer be used.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> 3. See Bach 1986, ter Meulen 1987. Dowty 1987 reports an idea of Hinrichs' that &amp;quot;'with respect to their Theme arguments, the meanings of telic predicates are homomorphisms from the algebra of entities (NP denotations) \[as suggested in, e.g., Link 1983--AN\] into the algebra of events (as conceived by Bach).&amp;quot; 4. Dahl (1981) confuses the issue by defining perfectivity only for telic histories (p. 82), in terms of reaching or not reaching their terminal point. Not surprisingly, he finds it difficult to keep the two categories apart.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> 5. Clearly, both narrative and exposition can be embedded in a conversation: the modality (spoken or written) does not determine the genre uniquely. I am talking about clear-cut cases.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> 6. One such investigation is already under way as part of a larger interdisciplinary study of the Deictic Center in Narratives (Bruder et al., 1986). Some of the foregoing material has been influenced by that project and overlaps with Nakhimovsky and Rapaport (in preparation).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> 7. Discussing examples like these, Cooper 1986:34 says that this kind of move is impossible with progressives. I don't think this is the case; once the dynamics of the move is understood, an appropriate example is easy to construct, e.g.: A heavy volume slipped off the top shelf and landed on Bob's right toe. He was hopping on the unaffected foot, holding the hurt one in both hands.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>