<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rdf:RDF 
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
>
  <channel rdf:about="http://journals.openedition.org/rlv">
    <title>Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes</title>
    <link>http://journals.openedition.org/rlv</link>
    <description>Revue publiant en français ou anglais les derniers résultats de la recherche consacrés à la linguistique contemporaine.  A journal of contemporary linguistics presenting articles in French and in English</description>        
    <items>    
      <rdf:Seq>      
        <rdf:li resource="http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2285" />
        <rdf:li resource="http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2269" />
        <rdf:li resource="http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2232" />
        <rdf:li resource="http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2230" />
        <rdf:li resource="http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2245" />
        <rdf:li resource="http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2169" />
        <rdf:li resource="http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2190" />
        <rdf:li resource="http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2199" />
        <rdf:li resource="http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2184" />
        <rdf:li resource="http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2177" />
              </rdf:Seq>  </items>  </channel>
  <item rdf:about="http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2285">
    <title>Preverbs in Russian: situation or viewpoint aspect?</title>
    <description><![CDATA[
      <p class="resume">The present paper has two goals: to present the complex data of verbal prefixation of Russian, and to assess the validity of the Situation Aspect-Viewpoint Aspect (Smith 1991) distinction for preverbs, in particular the thesis that all preverbs are telicity-markers (Borer 2005). First, arguments are introduced to show that all prefixed verbs are automatically perfective (pf), all are subject to lexical restrictions. A preliminary conclusion is that all preverbs are telicity markers, contra Filip (2005, 2008) for whom the preverb is pre-functional (lexical). This raises the question of the exact nature of telicity. In the literature (Dowty 1979, Krifka 1998), telicity is tested by means of <em>in x time</em> frame adverbials. A more relaxed version of telicity is proposed, following Borer (2005) &#38; Lakorczyk (2010): it suffices for an event to be either non divisive or non homogeneous to be telic. The concept is akin to Paducheva &#38; Pentus’ (2008) terminativity: the function of the preverb is t...</p>]]></description> 
    <dc:creator>Eric Corre</dc:creator>
    <link>http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2285</link>
    <dc:date>2015-06-04</dc:date>
  </item>
  <item rdf:about="http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2269">
    <title>Causer, recipient and possessor: the grammatical subject of get and the context-sensitivity of PHAVE</title>
    <description><![CDATA[
      <p class="resume">The present paper argues that possessive HAVE GOT develops out of present perfect HAVE <em>got(ten)</em> ‘onset of possession’ <em>via</em> the conventionalization or semanticization of the conversational implicature ‘stative possession’ (Traugott &#38; König 1991, Traugott &#38; Dasher 2003). Structural differences between the two expressions are operationalized within the frameworks of Minimalism and Distributed Morphology (Chomsky 1995, Halle &#38; Marantz 1993). The changes brought about by the conventionalization process include a switch of temporal reference from the pre-present to the present, a loss of the participial status of <em>got(ten),</em> a loss of the eventive component in GET, and a change of the thematic role of the subject from recipient to possessor. HAVE GOT is analyzed as a hybrid of a present perfect and a present tense expressions, incorporating structural features of both.</p>]]></description> 
    <dc:creator>Monika E. Schulz</dc:creator>
    <link>http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2269</link>
    <dc:date>2015-06-04</dc:date>
  </item>
  <item rdf:about="http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2232">
    <title>The Parameters of Aspect for Oḍia</title>
    <description><![CDATA[
      <p class="resume">It is a standard assumption that situation-type aspects (aktionsarts) are lexically marked on the predicate. However, in Oḍia, they can be grammatically expressed with a closed set of auxiliaries. As for the grammatically marked (viewpoint) aspects, Oḍia has a progressive marker but no overt perfective or imperfective. The so called ‘perfective marker’, which is also the ‘conjunctive participle’ marker, is given a unified analysis as a verb linearizer. The present analysis shows that the perfectivity in Oḍia is marked by the sequence of an eventive verb and a copular auxiliary; that is, when an event is followed by a state. It is observed that the progressive morpheme, across languages, remains uninterpretable without world-time features; in contrast, the imperfective morpheme drops them. In fact, the paper proposes the ‘imperfective’ and the ‘simple present’ as parametrically alternative constructions which do not check world-time features. Although the progressive is invariably te...</p>]]></description> 
    <dc:creator>Bibhuti Bhusan Mahapatra</dc:creator>
    <link>http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2232</link>
    <dc:date>2015-06-04</dc:date>
  </item>
  <item rdf:about="http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2230">
    <title>Introduction</title>
    <description><![CDATA[
      <p class="texte">The relationship between syntax and semantics has become a rich and fruitful topic of study over the last several decades. It is easy to see why: an adherence to principles in both of these domains at the same time constrains theories more than adherence to principles in only one domain. In this way, both syntactic and semantic theories benefit from work that is conducted at their interface.</p>
      <p class="texte">This is nowhere more true than in the study of aspect. Syntactic theory on aspect certainly benefits from an understanding of aspectual semantics; one can hardly study the syntax of aspect without doing enough semantics to characterize the aspectual distinctions that one seeks to explain. Thus the meanings presented in Reichenbach’s (1947) theory of tense (including the English perfect) are relevant for syntactic hypotheses. Reichenbach proposed that three times are referred to in every sentence: the Speech Time (ST), a Reference Time (RT) and an Event Time (ET). In his notation, a comma indicate...</p>]]></description> 
    <dc:creator>Jacqueline Guéron</dc:creator> 
    <dc:creator>Bridget Copley</dc:creator>
    <link>http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2230</link>
    <dc:date>2015-06-04</dc:date>
  </item>
  <item rdf:about="http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2245">
    <title>Preverbs, aspect and nominalization in Hungarian</title>
    <description><![CDATA[
      <p class="resume">This paper examines the realization of aspect in Hungarian eventive nominalizations. In the verbal domain, aspect is expressed by preverbs, which act as boundedness markers; they indicate telicity, and, when occurring in telic environments, perfectivity. Eventive nominals morphologically derived from verbs can also be associated with preverbs. In this case, the preverbs maintain the same values as with verbs. This leads to the conclusion that, in Hungarian, grammatical aspect is valid category in the nominal domain, as has recently been shown for various other languages. The paper also provides a syntactic approach of the organization of the aspectual projections with verbs and deverbal nominals, which accounts for the fact that preverbs cannot be separated from nominals, whereas they can when occurring with verbs.</p>]]></description> 
    <dc:creator>Marie Laurence Knittel</dc:creator>
    <link>http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2245</link>
    <dc:date>2015-06-04</dc:date>
  </item>
  <item rdf:about="http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2169">
    <title>Weak definites refer to kinds</title>
    <description><![CDATA[
      <p class="resume"><span xml:lang="en" lang="en">This paper presents an analysis of weak definites (e.g. <em>to answer </em><em><strong>the phone</strong></em>) as introduced by Carlson and Sussman (2005). The proposal is that these definites refer to kinds, which are instantiated by ordinary individuals when they combine with object-level predicates. This combination is made possible by a lexical rule that lifts object-level predicates to kind-level predicates, and incorporates into their denotation a predicate that represents the stereotypical usages of the kinds. This analysis accounts for most of the peculiar properties of weak definites.</span></p>]]></description> 
    <dc:creator>Ana Aguilar Guevara</dc:creator> 
    <dc:creator>Joost Zwarts</dc:creator>
    <link>http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2169</link>
    <dc:date>2014-10-23</dc:date>
  </item>
  <item rdf:about="http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2190">
    <title>Back to uniqueness presupposition</title>
    <description><![CDATA[
      <p class="resume"><span xml:lang="en" lang="en">While it is usually assumed that definite descriptions presuppose the existence and the uniqueness for their referent, there are lots of counter-examples, in which either the existence or the uniqueness isn’t presupposed. </span>Among them are weak definites, which can be divided into two classes: (i) the short weak definites such as<em> the train </em>in the VP <em>take the train</em> and (ii) the long weak definites such as <em>the student of a linguist</em> in the sentence <em>this data comes from the student of a linguist</em>. A unified analysis of these two classes is proposed, based on the claim that nouns in weak definite descriptions refer to types and that the definite determiner triggers only a weak uniqueness presupposition, in wich the uniqueness depends on the existence.</p>]]></description> 
    <dc:creator>Claire Beyssade</dc:creator>
    <link>http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2190</link>
    <dc:date>2014-10-23</dc:date>
  </item>
  <item rdf:about="http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2199">
    <title>Amount definites</title>
    <description><![CDATA[
      <p class="resume"><span xml:lang="en" lang="en">Our project in the paper is twofold. First, we present an analysis of weak definites in general. Second, we present an analysis of the Semitic state inflection and its role in determining strong and weak definiteness, and introduce a novel type of weak definites which we call amount definites. Adopting the choice-function analysis of (in)definiteness, we analyse weak definiteness as the application of a type-shifted definite determiner to a relational noun. This application results in the reinterpretation of the relational noun as functional. When this function is in turn applied to the possessor, the definiteness of the result depends on the definiteness of the possessor. In Hebrew, weak definites often take the form of noun phrases headed by a noun marked with construct-state inflection; the paper discusses the interpretation of all construct-state nouns as relational. In colloquial Hebrew, the type-shifted definite determiner used in the formation of weak definites may take the f...</span></p>]]></description> 
    <dc:creator>Edit Doron</dc:creator> 
    <dc:creator>Irit Meir</dc:creator>
    <link>http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2199</link>
    <dc:date>2014-10-23</dc:date>
  </item>
  <item rdf:about="http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2184">
    <title>Weak definites as bound relational definites</title>
    <description><![CDATA[
      <p class="resume">Cet article introduit une proposition nouvelle pour intégrer les définis faibles (Carlson et Sussman 2005) dans une théorie globale de la définitude. Les définis faibles sont analysés comme définis relationnels, et comparés aux autres membres de ce paradigme : les définis « associatifs » (Hawkins 1978) et les définis relationnels complets à génitif (Barker 1993). La thèse principale de l’article est que les définis faibles ont un contenu relationnel intégrant des variables liées à l’intérieur de leur domaine propositionnel. Cette thèse conçoit la définitude faible comme une signification <em>constructionnelle </em>impliquant la proposition dans son ensemble et déclenchant un enrichissement du sens qui repose sur le <em>quale </em>télique (Pustejovsky 1995) du nom-tête.</p>]]></description> 
    <dc:creator>Francis Corblin</dc:creator>
    <link>http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2184</link>
    <dc:date>2014-10-23</dc:date>
  </item>
  <item rdf:about="http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2177">
    <title>Familiarity constraints on weak definite DPS</title>
    <description><![CDATA[
      <p class="resume"><span xml:lang="en" lang="en">Weak definite DPs have been characterized as definite DPs lacking the uniqueness presupposition usually associated with the definite determiner and suffering distributional restrictions that depend on the lexical information conveyed by the NP and on the prototypicality of the activity denoted by the VP. This paper tackles the latter issue. We propose a unified analysis of the definite determiner, by which the determiner conveys a presupposition of uniqueness and of familiarity also in weak DPs. Appealing to the notion of weak familiarity (Roberts 2003), we can thus account for prototypicality restrictions, which turn out to depend on the accessibility of familiar situations in a conversational or conventional background. </span></p>]]></description> 
    <dc:creator>Marta Donazzan</dc:creator>
    <link>http://journals.openedition.org/rlv/2177</link>
    <dc:date>2014-10-23</dc:date>
  </item>
</rdf:RDF>