Abstract

This thesis proposes that the English progressive semantically modifies the relation between events and times, and that this semantics uniformly underlies a variety of apparently disparate readings of the progressive. Chapter 2 begins with Jespersen's observation that the progressive presents an event as a temporal frame around a given time. I demonstrate that the temporal frame reading is not an entailment of the progressive but arises by implicature; the existence of an event of greater duration than the framed time t is implicated but not entailed. I also show that restrictions on the framed time t proposed elsewhere, claiming that t must be an instant, or that t must be non-initial and non-final in t$\sp\prime$, are incorrect. ;In Chapter 3 I address certain problems with the progressive of state predicates, including habituals. Having argued that the progressive is not ill-formed or false with state predicates per se, I offer an account of the temporary or limited duration reading of progressive state predicates in terms of the implicature outlined in Chapter 2 for the progressive/non-progressive contrast in the present tense. I argue that where a simple tense state predicate has the individual-level reading, the progressive form implicates temporariness because it explicitly dates or temporally locates the state described. I argue that certain psychological state predicates resist the progressive because the explicit dating of a state or event expressed by the progressive is anomalous. ;A very old traditional observation, holding that the progressive is a "definite tense", contrasting with the "indefinite" perfect, is addressed in Chapter 4. I argue for a quantificational analysis of the novelty and familiarity effects, and claim that the original definite/indefinite classification of verb forms should be captured by differences in the quantification over times. ;In Chapter 5 I discuss the Imperfective Paradox, and the two main types of response to it. I argue that certain inadequacies indicate the correctness of the second view, which holds that the paradox is only apparent, as the predicate found in a progressive sentence is not the same as the predicate in the corresponding non-progressive sentence