Event Representation in Language and Cognition

Language, culture and cognition Editor Stephen C. Levinson, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics

Event Representation in Language and Cognition Edited by

This series looks at the role of language in human cognition - language in both its universal, psychological aspects and its variable, cultural aspects. Studies focus on the relation between semantic and conceptual categories and processes, especially as these are illuminated by cross-linguistic and cross-cultural studies, the study of language acquisition and conceptual development, and the study of the relation of speech production and comprehension to other kinds of behaviour in a cultural context. Books come principally, though not exclusively, from research associated with the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, and in particular the Language and Cognition Group.

Jürgen Bohnemeyer Unive/;\'ity at Buffalo, The State University

and

Eric Pederson University 010regon

I Jan Nuyts and Eric Pederson (eds.) Language and Conceptualization 2 David McNeill (ed.) Language and Gesture 3 Melissa Bowerman and Stephen C. Levinson (eds.) Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development 4 Guntel' Senft (ed.) Systems ofNominal Classification 5 Stephen C. Levinson Space in Language and Cognition 6 Stephen C. Levinson and David Wilkins (eds.) Grammars ofSpace 7 N. J. Enfield and Tanya Stivers (eds.) Person Reference inlnteraction: Linguistic, cultural and sodal perspectives 8 N. J. Enfield The Anatomy ofMeaning: Speech, gesture, and composite utterances 9 Giovanni Bennardo Language, Space, and Sodal Relationships: Afoundational culturalmodel in Polynesia 10 Paul Kockelman Language, Culture, and Mind: Natural constructions and sodal kinds 11 Jürgen Bohnemeyer and Eric Pederson (eds.) Event Representation in Language and Cognition

"",:':,,,,, CAMBRIDGE :~:

'

UNIVERSITY PRESS

01 Ne\\' York

Time event relations and clause structure

4

Event representation, time event relations, and clause structure A crosslinguistic study of English and German Mary Carroll and Christiane von Stutterheiln

1

Introduction

One of the central questions in cognitive linguistics concerns human cognition and the way dynarnic situations are structured for expression. When language is used to convey information on experience, it is far from being a mirror of what was actually perceived. Representations are based on information stored in memory and retrieved when construing areportable event in the language used. Taking the linguistic output as a point of reference, the process is selective, perspective-driven and interpretative. Crosslinguistic studies of event representation show that the perspectives chosen can differ, depending on the expressive means available to the speaker, and the term 'event representation' is used in the following to relate to event construal at this level. Many languages require speakers to direct attention to temporal contours of events, for exampIe, as in aspect-marking languages such as Modern Standard Arabic, where events are viewed and encoded as to whether they are completed, ongoing, 01' relate to a specific phase (inceptive, terminative, etc.). When talking about events, speakers may also have to accommodate relational systems that include reference to the time of speech, since formal means of this kind allow us to say whether an event occurred in the near 01' distant past, for example, 01' just now. An assertion such as the lights went out when the dog barked is grounded in context, in temporal terms, since the time for which the assertion holds has been specified as preceding the time of utterance. Attention can be directed to the status of the participants in the event by placing references at relevant positions in the clause. In the following utterance, attention is directed to the participant a dog by using a presentative structure such as the existential there is, as in there was a dog sitting on the l11at that barked when the lights went out. The participant a dog is singled out for attention (in contrast to the utterance above) by mapping it onto form in this way. In terms of information structure, an existential is a form of presentational that serves to call special attention to one element of the sentence (Hetzron 1975). Its purpose is to present a previously inactive, brand-new referent in the text-internal world (Lambrecht 1994). 68

69

This is just one way of directing attention to entities via grammatical means (see Tomlin 1997). Speakers generally take this battery of linguistic knowledge into account when talking about events, so the question is: Do the means used in anchoring an event and its participants in context have implications for the way in which the event is represented? Is grammatical knowledge the servant in this process in that it is brought to bear on a ready-made outcome in event representation and comes up with the best possible fit, 01' is it incorporated at an earlier stage in order to help ensure the best pos~ible fit? In pursuing this question the crosslinguistic analysis takes into account the range of linguistic requirements that speakers must satisfy when grounding information on an event in context. As shown in the following, it investigates the extent to which event representation varies, depending on the means used to direct attention to participants in events, as wen as the temporal relational systems and other means that determine how an event is anchored in context. The status of the concept of an event is evidenced in the fact that the notion of time has been treated in some theories on the basis of temporal relations between events such as precedence 01' simultaneity (Kamp 1979; Russell 1936). The assertion of a temporal relation such as precedence requires not only a witness 01' observer, but a temporal entity that is somehow individuated. Definitions of what constitutes an event (01' process) have relied on how they contrast with states. While events and processes may have temporal parts (beginning, middle, end), states do not. Events and processes can be subdivided into parts that can be viewed as the same in kind (to knot knots in astring, for example) 01' as heterogeneous (to l11end a tire), allowing significant analogies with the domain of objects with regard to the distinction between mass nouns vs. count nouns with respect to the factors individuation, as weIl as subdivisibility (see Bach 1981). Event structure thus lends itself to descriptions in terms of part-whole relations, a feature at the focus of the present crosslinguistic analysis (see below). In addition to these factors, the concept of an event is bound up with notions of agentivity and volition as weIl as associated causal relations (see, e.g., Dowty 1979, 1991). As indicated above, tense and aspect characterize event structure, in addition to the lexical content of the verb and its arguments (Comrie 1976; Bach 1981; Dahl 1985; Parsons 1990; Smith 1991; Rothstein 1998a; Klein 1994; Klein, Li, and Hendricks 2000; Higginbotham, Pianesi, and Varzi 2000; Wunderlich 2006). A wide range of crosslinguistic comparisons have focused on languagespecific differences found in the conceptualization and representation of specific event types and how they are linked to the way relevant concepts are mapped linguistically. This applies in particulaI' to motion events (Talmy 1985, 2000a; Slobin 1991,2000; Gumperz and Levinson 1996a; Bohnemeyer et al. 2007), separation events such as to cut, break sOl11ething (Majid et al. 2004),

Time event relations and clause structure

eV~htseria1izatiöll (Fawley 1987; Talmy 2000a). Going beyond the representatIOn of event types of this kind, language specific means have been observed when sequencing sets of events (narratives, reports), where underlying temporal ~rames c~n be shown to follow language-specific principles that are grammatlcally dnven (von Stutterheim, Carroll, and Klein 2003; von Stutterheim and Nüse 2003; Carroll et al. 2008).

Th~ sema~tic domain under study in the present analysis involves events assoclated wlth everyday situations (hammering a nail into the sole of a shoe) that ca~ be represented in terms of the overall event (repairing a shoe) 01' one of lts sub-events (hitting a nail with a hammer into the sole of the shoe). ~he. langu~ges at the focus of analysis, English and German, have access to slmllar lexICal means in order to represent situations of this kind via their verbal ~exicon. However, they differ in the grammatical means used when groun?lllg events in context (i.e., in specifying the time interval for which an assertl?n. hold~; directing attention to participants in the event). The present analysIs l~VeStIgates the extent to which grounding requirements of this kind, and assocl~ted grammatical means, are linked with options chosen in event representatIOn.

2

Grounding events, time of assertion, and event representation

In order to test t.he possible impact of this form of linguistic knowledge on ~vent. re.presentatl?n, standardized video clips (40) were designed for the cross~lllgUlS~lC comp~nson. The information presented was new in each clip, thus lllcre~slllg the hkelihood that speakers would ground the events and direet attention to the participants as required, when asked to tell what is happening.

2.1

Clause type and time ofassertion

~ pilot st~dy .had ~hown that the preferred option in English in telling ,Fhat IS happelllng lS to l~troduce the main participant in the event in question by ~ean~ of a pr~sentatIOnal. In the majority of cases this is the existential there

as l~ there IS a boy. The temporal information encoded by this clause asserts the eXlstence of the entity in the discourse world. This means that information o~ ~n associate~ event in which x is a participant (e.g., there is a girl who is luttll~g a ball wlth a bat) is mapped into a relative clause introduced by the rela~lve pronoun who. A video clip showing a man sitting at a typewriter and gettlllg ready to type can be represented as IS,

there is a man (main clause) (who is) typing on a typewriter (dependent clause)

71

Presentationals allow the speaker to place information that is being mentioned for the first time (e.g. a man) in a position following the finite verb. As mentioned above, this satisfies requirements in information structure for first mentions: place inaccessible information in a position following the verb and reserve the position preceding the verb for information which is familiar, or in same way accessible to the interlocutor. The fact that information on the event is mapped onto the dependent clause has implications for temporal grounding. With the statement there is a man, the speaker makes an assertion about a time interval in the here and now. Significantly, the time for which the assertion holds is coded explicitly for information in the main clause only; i.e., for the existence of the entity (there is a man). "It is now the case that a man exists" is asseIted as holding for the time span at issue (topic time). The event encoded in the dependent clause does not have an assertion time in explicit terms, since it is in a subordinate relation to the main clause. This means that the time span for which the event holds is underspecified (see in detail, Klein 1994, 2006, and section 4 below). The event encoded in the dependent clause is not strictly tied to the time interval asselted via the tensed finite verb of the main clause. What this entails for event representation will be analyzed below. Speakers can also map information on the situation into a single main clause, and leave the indication that the referent in question is being mentioned for the first time to an indefinite article (e.g. a man): A man is inserting a sheet of paper into a typewriter In this case information on the event is mapped into the finite verb of a main clause and the time span for which the assertion holds relates to the event (here andnow). 2.2

Macro-events, sub-events, experimental design

Taking again the situation represented as there is a man typing at his desk, the video clip stmts with the participant seated at a desk in an office: Takes a sheet of paper Inserts the sheet into a typewriter Positions the sheet (end of clip) English speakers prefer to represent this situation in overall terms as what can be called the macro-event there is a man typing, rather than the sub-events shown in the clip. Following Bohnemeyer et al. (2007), a construction has the macroevent property to the extent that it packages an event representation so that temporal, aspectual operators cannot access proper sub-events individually; in

72

Cannll and 1'011 Stutterheim

this sense temporal operators for the macro-event necessarily have scope over all sub-events (see also Talmy 2000a). The decision in the experimental design as to what a typing situation encompasses is based on criteria that rely on world knowledge and trial and error in standardizing the video clips. In the real world, a situation represented as typing at a typewriter could form part of a continuum preceded by another possible unit such as "getting an old typewriter out of the store room," preceded by "arriving at the office," etc. What may count as a typing situation, for example, and allow representation as a macro-event or one of its sub-events (or both), is specified in the design with the event boundaries presented via the video clip. Its viability was tested empirically on the basis of speakers' responses in a pilot study that included the languages in the overall crosslinguistic study (Semitic, Romance, and Germanic languages). A situation showing "someone folding out a sofa to convert it into a bed" and allowing the representation SOI11eOne is converting a sofa into a bed, as a macro-event, was not validated since speakers generally relate to the individual sub-events shown. On the other hand, a situation with "someone drinking a glass of water" will be rarely represented at a high level of resolution with sub-events such as grasping the glass, lifting it off the table etc. Underlying principles at this level are given by event schemas based, in part, on cultural practice and world knowledge. In contrast to questions regarding the macro-event, the relevant sub-events can be defined on the basis of temporal criteria, given the fact that they can be located at a unique point within the given frame, as mentioned above. Subevents are temporally located events in that they form part of a sequence. Take, for example, a clip with a child playing ball on a lawn in the back garden. The clip shows the following: Picks up a ball Positions it over its head Turns to aim the ball at a goal Throws it towards the goal The speaker may choose to relate to any one of these events in answering the question rvhat is happening. The sub-events of positioning the ball and turning around could be subsumed hierarchically and represented as to aim the ball, for example. In the present analysis it is still categorized as a subevent of the macro-event (playing ball), since aiming the ball can be uniquely located in relation to the other sub-events (preceded by pick up the ball, for example). Representations at the macro level can have different degrees of differentiation (playing, vs. playing agame, vs. playing ball); they can be treated, on the whole, as situations represented as a single state, using verbs such as to play, to sing, to type. Sub-events, by contrast, are generally encoded by verbs

Time event relations and clause structure

73

that relate to a change in state, giving two different states, 01' more specifically two times, as in throw a ball towards a sZide. With throw the ball, for example, there is the time before the ball is thrown and the time when the ball is thrown. Thus throw x describes an event with two times in which there is a transition from a time interval with "ball not thrown" to one where the assertion "ball is thrown" holds (see Klein 1994, 2000). Speakers can defocus changes of this kind, using verbs with one time such as playing ball, for example. Dynamic situations represented in this way are also termed 'homogeneous' (Ryle 1949), or 'atelic,' i.e., possible goal orientations are defocused (Comrie 1976; Bach 1981; Sasse 2002). The contrast between situations represented as having one vs. two times is often a question of p'erspective: if terminal points, boundaries 01' transitions from one phase to the other are defocused, speakers make way for a representation of a situation with one-time verbs: he is playing with blocks, as opposed to two-times verbs he is building a tower out ofblocks. In the latter case the existence of whatever is being buHt will provide a time at which the event can be viewed as completed. With the representation he is playing with blocks the possible time of completion is not in any way indicated in the means chosen in the linguistic representation. The video clips consisted of forty separate scenes with six test items and thirty-four fillers. The six items in which the event at issue could be represented at the level of either a macro- 01' sub-event are as follows, using verbs with one 01' two times: • Scene (1) shows a person at a riverbank fty fishing: the film clip shows the fisherman standing on the banks of a river, casting the line and letting it ftoat on the water. The options in event representation include the macro-events fishing, fiy fishing or a possible sub-event such as casting the Zine. • Scene (2) shows a person at a typewriter preparing to type: the scene shows a man sitting at a typewriter taking a sheet from a tray with paper, and inselting it in the typewriter. The options in this case are the macro-event typing/preparing to type or one 01' more of its sub-events, taldng a sheet of papel; inserting, putting a sheet ofpaper in the typewriter. • Scene (3) shows a young boy in a garden throwing a ball towards a goal; the options are a macro-event such as playing ball, playing agame, or sub-events such as throwing, tossing, rolling a ball, etc. • Scene (4) shows someone in the supermarket pushing a trolley along the aisle and stopping in front of a shelf, taking a packet off the shelf, putting it in the trolley. Options at the macro level include shopping, getting the groceries, and as possible sub-events pushing a trolley around in a supermarket, taking x offthe shelj,putting x in the trolley. • Scene (5) shows a waitress in a cafe with a tray in her hand, going over to a table, taking a cup of coffee off the tray and placing it on a table in front of

74

Carroll alld VOll Stlltterheim

aperson. A possible macro-event in this case is serving coffee, or any of the events listed as a possible sub-event. • Scene (6) shows a person at a table rebuilding a tower made out of building blocks; some of the blocks are still in a jumble on the table, while others are already stacked as the base of a tower; the clip shows the person taking a block and placing it on the base. Possible options here are playing, playing with blocks, building something, 01' any of the possible sub-events (take, place, put, stack a block). (Although building a tower is a macro-event description, build is a verb with two times.) Speakers ofEnglish were asked to tell what is happening; the corresponding form in German is was passiert gerade ('tell what happens just now'). The speakers were told that we were interested in what was going on and not in a description of the scene. This was emphasized, since pilot studies showed that speakers often give lengthy descriptions that reduce the time available to present information on the event. The forty scenes were presented in randomized orders with a blank between each clip of eight seconds, while each clip lasted approximately seven to nine seconds (entire set with forty clips around ten minutes). Examples from the English and German data sets are as folIows. English Shopping (macro-event, encoded in adependent clause; full existential clause) 001 002

There is a girl shopping in a supermarket

Shopping (macro-event, encoded in adependent clause; existential elliptical) 001 002

A woman going grocel}' shopping

Time event relations and dause structure

75

Shopping (sub-event, encoded in main clauses) 001

Eine Frau geht mit einem Einkaufswagen durch den Laden 'A woman goes with a trolley through the shop

002

und nimmt Sachen aus dem Regal and takes things out of the shelf'

A note on existential clauses in the English data - as weil as the general omission of the relative pronoun who in introducing the dependent clause is in order here since the full clause is typically realized in the first scenes presented, there is a boy (who is) playing in the garden, but is generally reduced to an elliptical pattern in which there is is omitted as the task proceeds. The expletive there forms the syntactic subject of the clause but is empty with regard to content. The full existential recurs in the data, given changes such as a switch in tense, since the clause has to be realized in full with the finite verb to mark the tense in question (there was a man painting a picture). Although speakers generally begin speaking approximately two seconds after the clip started (speech onset), they sometimes wait until the clip has finished, which occasionally leads to a change in tense. With regard to the omission of the relative pronoun in the present data set, dependent clauses differ in informational status and function, depending on whether the relative pronoun is used 01' not. If the relative pronoun is used, the referent is introduced as a 'topic' for a subsequent presentation, as in there was an old king who lived in a beautiful castle. When the relative pronoun is used, the speaker can be expected to continue with more information on the referent in question (see Lambrecht 1994). Where this is not called for, as in the scenes above, the relative pronoun can be omitted. In other words, a statement with there is a man at a desk who is tl}'Ülg to type, would indicate that we can expect to hear more about this referent, which is not the case in the present task.

(sub-event, encoded in main clauses)

3 001 002

A woman is pushing a shopping trolley and has chosen something offthe shelf

Typing (sub-events, encoded in main clauses) 001 002

A man is taking papel' putting it into a typewriter

German Shopping (sub-event, encoded in main clauses) 001

Jemand nimmt eine Packung Kekse aus dem Regal 'Someone takes a packet of biscuits out of the shelf'

Event representation and clause type

Table 4.1 gives an overview of preferences in the selection of clause type when mapping information on the event onto form. The figures cover 180 events (six scenes, thirty speakers). Information on the event is typically mapped into a main clause in German (88.3%) while presentationals (ich sehe . .. I see ... ), with information on the event in adependent clause, amount to 11.6%. In English the preferred pattern is the other way around, compared to German, since information on the event is typically mapped into adependent clause (70.0%) occurring in conjunction with an existential. Table 4.2 shows how event representation in English (macro-event 01' subevent) is distributed across the two clause types for thesix scenes listed above. As shown in the table, macro-events are more likely to occur with adependent

76

77

Cannll alld 1'011 Stutterheim

Time event relations and clause structure

Table 4.1 Clause type: Dependent vs. main clm/se

Table 4.4 English: Distribution ofmacro- emd sub-events with respect to clm/se type

Information on event in dependent clause

Information on event in a main clause

English

German

126/180 70.0%

21/180 11.6%

541180 30.0%

159/180 88.3%

Event main clause

English 30 speakers

Table 4.2 English: Event representation in dependent vs. main clauses Macro-event in dependent clause

104/126 82.5%

Sub-event in dependent clause

22/126 17.4%

Macro-event in main clause

23/54 42.5%

Sub-event in main clause

31/54 57.4%

Event dependent clause

6 Scenes (180)

Sub-event

Macro-event

Sub-event

Macro-event

typing (30) fishing (30) playing (30) shopping (30) serving coffee (30) building tower (30)

4/5 3/7 3/5 5/11 9/14 7/12

1/5 4/7 2/5 6/11 5114 5/12

4/25 0/23 6/25 4/19 3/16 5/18

21/25 23/23 19/25 15/19 13/16 13/18

180 Total

31/54 57.4%

23/54 42.5%

22/126 17.4%

104/126 82.5%

Table 4.5 German: Distribution of macro- and sub-events with respect to clause type Table 4.3 German: Event representation in dependent vs. main clauses German 30 speakers Macro-event in main clause

46/146 31.5%

Sub-event in main clause

1001146 68.4%

Macro-event in dependent clause

8/21 38.1%

Sub-event in dependent clause

13/21 61.9%

clause, while representations in terms of a sub-event are relatively low in this clause type (17.4%) and are more likely to occur in a main clause. This distribution is also found in Gel'man, in that sub-events are less likely to occur in adependent clause, compared to main clauses (table 4.3). Overall frequencies differ, however, since there is a clear preference for main clauses and sub-events in event representation in German. (In 13/180 cases the situation was described at the level of the macro-event as weIl as one of the sub-events, i.e. giving two main clauses. The thirteen cases were omitted in the analysis so the figures for main clauses add up to 146 and not 159.) German speakers tend to map information on the event into a main clause, and in this case the event is also typically represented as a sub-event, as in the English data. Given the low number of occurrences in German for dependent clauses, the present figures are not reliable. So there is evidence of similar preferences in event representation, given a specific clause type in both languages, but the languages differ with respect to the frequency with which the patterns occur.

Event main clause

Event dependent clause

(13 references omitted)

Sub-event

Macro-event

Sub-event

Macro-event

typing (29) fishing (26) playing (27) shopping (27) serving coffee (30) building tower (28)

23/28 10/17 12/19 14/26 20/29 21/27

5/28 7/17 7119 12/26 9/29 6/27

1/1 5/9 4/8 1/1 1/1 1/1

0/1 4/9 4/8 0/1 Oll Oll

167 Total

100/146 68.4%

46/146 31.5%

13/21 61.9%

8/21 38.1%

The frequency of occurrence of the two event types in main clauses in German (sub-events 68.4% vs. macro-events 31.5%) is not random. 1 A breakdown of the numbers, as found for each of the six scenes, is presented in tables 4.4 and 4.5 for both languages. 1

The preference for the sub-event is significant (sub-event vs. macro-event HO) = 7.030, p = 0.008). English native speakers clearly prefer the macro-event in dependent clauses (HO) = 8.366, P = 0.004). In both languages the distribution observed is random when OCCUl"rences for the given clause type are 10w (e.g. dependent main clauses in German (21) or main clauses in English (54)).

78

Cannll alld 1'011

Stutterheim

Time event relations and c1ause structure

So far there is evidence of a sustained correlation between the way in which information on an event is embedded at clause level, indicating that this and associated temporal factors are coupled in event representation. 2

Table 4.6 Event representation in Gerl11an, dependent clause enforced Event representation as macro-event Event representation as sub-event

4

79

47/90 (52.2%) 43/90 (47.7%)

Testing preferences in event representation

In order to test the stability of the patterns observed, where speakers show matched preferences between event representation, clause type and associated temporal factors (assertion time), a set of experiments was carried out in which the clause type, as well as the time given to formulate information on the event, were manipulated. If speakers have a preference in event representation that is independent of temporal factors associated with clause status, these preferences should be immune to manipulations of this kind. The following tests were carried out with speakers of German. (i) In the first experiment speakers of German were asked to use adependent clause to see if this led to any change in the preference to represent the situation on the basis of a sub-event. (ii) In the second experiment the blanks. between the video clips, the time in which speakers can provide information on the scene, was reduced by two seconds from eight to six seconds, compared to the standard set described above. However, the length of the video clips was maintained (approx. eight to nine seconds), giving speakers the same length of time as before to process information on the scene. Again if speakers have a preference in event conceptualization for sub-events, then this should not be open to disruption by exerting time pressure and reducing the time available in mapping information into form. 4.1

[nduGing use of adependent clause

Since the existential (es gibt . .. 'there is') is rarely used when grounding information in German, speakers were asked to use the construction (ich sehe. .. 'I see'), since presentationals typically take this form in the cases in which they occur in the data base:

The speakers were also asked here to tell was passiert gerade ('what happens just now'), as with the data set desci'ibed above, but to formulate their response using the clause type indicated. This construction is similaI' to existentials in English since focus is directed on the participant in the event (ich sehe einen Jungen, 'I see a boy'), and information on the event in which the entity participates is encoded in adependent clause. The task was carried out with fifteen speakers and the stimulus material consisted of the same set of forty scenes with the six test items described above (ninety events).

4.2

Results

The enforced use of the dependent clause leads to an increase in the number of cases in which the event is represented as a macro-event (47/90; 52.2%), reducing the rate of occurrence for sub-events to 47.7%. The response thus differs from the spontaneous data set described above where the overall occurrence for sub-events is higher at 68.4% (main clauses). Although the tendency is not pronounced, it is possible to disrupt a preference for sub-events by asking speakers to use a different type of clause. In the present context one form of representation is as likely as the other.

4.3

Experiment with time pressure

As mentioned above, time pressure was introduced by reducing the time between the video clips to express the relevant information. Crucially, the time left for information processing and event conceptualization, i.e. the length of time of the video clip, was maintained as in the standard set. The experiment was carried out with twenty speakers of German and the same six test items.

ich sehe einen Jungen der ins Wasser springt 'I see a boy who into the water jumps' 4.4 2

A pr~liminary co~parison with Italian with a similar task (twenty-live speakers, live scenes) provldes further eVldence for the preferences observed. A high frequency in the use of existentials and a conjoined dependent clause (72.6%), compared to main clauses (27.4%), cOlTelates with a predominance ofmacro-events 86/125 (68.8%), in contrast to sub-events 39/125 (31.2%), in event representation.

Results

The total number of events analyzed is not 120 but 108, since there are twelve syntactically incomplete responses in the time pressure data set. While main clauses still predominate at 85/108 (78.7%), the preference in event representation has clearly changed. Representations as sub-events are lower with an

80

Time event relations and clause structure

Cannll alld VOll Stutterheim

Table 4.7 Event representation under time pressure Event main clause

Event dependent clause

Sub-event

Macro-event

Sub-event

Macro-event

44/108 40.7%

42/108 38.9%

6/108 5.5%

16/108 14.8%

overall frequency of 50/108 (46.2%), and are as likely to occur as representations as a macro-event 58/108 (53.7%). In contrast to event representation, preferences in the selection of clause type are not disrupted. Table 4.7 illustrates the distribution of macro- and sub-events across main clauses. In sum, the findings show that time pressure disrupts preferences in event representation, although the time available for the conceptualization phase was not modified. If event representation as a sub-event were paramount in German, with precedence over temporal and grammatical factors, disruption under the set conditions should be unlikely. Coming back to the question as to whether formal means used in anchoring an event and its participants in context have implications for the way in which the event is represented, the results indicate that time pressure has led to the disruption of a finely tuned set of grammatical factors that allow a congruent fit between requirements relating to temporal anchoring, assertion time, clause type, and event representation.

5

Discussion and conclusions

In solving distributional questions in information structure, speakers draw on constructions which either profile an entity, and its properties, or an event and its participants (existentials with adependent clause vs. a simple main clause). These options at clause level correlate with different preferences in event representation, as shown in the analysis presented above. The question is, what factors drive the preferences observed in event representation? 5.1

Clause type, time

0/ assertion,

andfiniteness

As outlined in section 1, one of the crucial distinctions between main and dependent clauses concerns the encoding of assertion time. Taking, for example, a situation represented as a soprano was singing, a distinction is drawn between the situation time and the time for which the assertion or claim is made, as in a soprano was singing when he arrived. In the latter case the assertion was singing holds for the interval given with when he arrived. The time interval in the latter

81

example is refelTed to as the 'topic time' 01' 'the time for which the assertion holds' (see in detail, Klein 1994; 2006). Significantly, this is where main and dependent clauses differ. Dependent clauses have a reduced tense structure and temporal interpretation is dependent on the verb of the main clause (Hazout 2004; Klein 2006). Taking, for example, there is a teacher (who is) doing equations, the event depicted in the dependent clause (doing equations) does not have a time of assertion, in contrast to the main clause there is a teacher. The temporal properties of the dependent clause are not accessible since they are overruled by the main clause 'and its finite component. This means that what is actually now the case does not necessarily hold for the event predicated in the dependent clause. The time for which the assertion holds relates to the existence of the entity: it is claimed that it is now the case that - "there exists a teacher." Looking at the nature of the time interval at issue, the time span for x exists goes beyond the time interval given by the individual event in which the entity becomes a participant. The interval which is active in the conceptual space may open the door for the speaker to select an event description that is not necessarily closely tied to the here and now and to represent the situation as the macro-event: there is a teacher doing maths rather than there is a teacher writing an equation on the board (a sub-event depicted in the video clip). If a main clause is used, the verb that encodes information on the event delivers the assertion time, and thus relates directly to the question what is happening? The results of the empirical analysis reveal a preference in event representation in main clauses which is closer to the here and now, since speakers are more likely to select one of the sub-events shown in the clip. Temporal factors, time of assertion, and related time intervals may constitute one of the factors leading to the different preferences in event representation in the present task, showing how clause type and time event relations are interrelated as possible contributing factors in event representation. 5.2

Existential predicates (md dependent clm/ses

Examining the existential and the dependent clause, options in event representation mayaiso be sensitive to the attributive function of the dependent clause, since the clause in which the event is encoded is a pseudo-relative there is a boy (who is) playing ball. Relative clauses belong to the set ofmeans that encode properties of entities and modify nouns. In this context there is also the question of the there-clause and the semantics of existence predicates in that there existential predicates can denote a property of a situation (see Strawson 1959; Chierchia 1998a,b; McNally 2009). This is indicated in the contrast between the following descriptions of a situation. In yesterday we were at the amusement park; there was singing the singing can be interpreted as an integral part of the amusements on offer, while the description yesterday

82

Canvll alld VOll Stlltterheil11

we were at the amusement park; SOI11eone was singing could be interpreted as coincidental and not a set feature in the program. Furthermore, predicates with instantiate-type semantics do not combine with expressions that denote particulars but with non-particular denoting expressions (McNally 2009; Chung and Ladusaw 2004); denoting non-particulars: There was every type and brand of farm andforestry equipment available; denoting particulars *There was every piece ofequipment available (see in detail, McNally 2009). In this sense, existential predicates are property predicates and may constitute one of the relevant factors in event representation with respect to the level of abstraction observed with this type of construction. Given use of the construction existential + dependent clause, a situation is more likely to be represented as a playing situation, typing situation, a shopping situation, rather than at the level of one of the sub-events, with all its particulars (taking a packet offthe shelf) as depicted in the video clip. The differences in event representation observed across the main and dependent clause cannot be attributed to the progressive, since it occurs in both contexts and its inherent semantic features are the same in both clause types. The same preferences in event representation across clause type are also found in German where this temporal perspective is rarely used. 5.3

Information structure and event representation

As mentioned briefty in section 1, questions relating to information structure constitute the basis for the use of the clause types found in the present study. The majority of English speakers, for example, select a construction that satisfies requirements regarding the distribution of new 01' unfamiliar information in the clause. The construction used (existential) has an expletive or empty subject (there . .. ) which closes the door, so to speak, on the option of mapping information onto the syntactic subject of the clause, and with this onto preverbal position in English. In the present task, for example, this structure ensures placement of the participant (new or not active in memory) in postverbal position. The frequency of the existential in the data can be attributed to the fact that in English, as weIl as the Romance languages, the subject of the sentence is a core feature in encoding topic information, i.e. information that is clearly at issue and recoverable in the context in question. In contrast to English, information that is new in German in the domain of discourse can be mapped as the syntactic subject, since this can be placed in different positions in the clause. Word order constraints for main clauses, in a formal sense, are limited to the position of the finite verb, since this must be the second main constituent (verb second 01' V2 constraint). This creates slots around the finite verb (Vorfeld, 'prefie1d'; Mittelfeld, 'midfield') that can be used to encode information with topic status (see Frey 2000). Constraints in

Time event relations and clause structure

83

placing new information in the Vorfeld (preverbal position) are linked to the assigmnent of topic status, as occurs with participants involved in aseries of events, for example (e.g., in a narrative). This is not the case in the present study, given the fact that the forty scenes shown in the video clips are not connected in any way. All the information encoded in the clause is treated as having focus status, i.e., requiring attention as new. 5.4

Knowledge bases in language production

The findings provide a window on event representation and show how temporal semantic factors associated with existential predicates, main and dependent clauses, are taken into account when talking about events. The findings indicate that event representation is guided by an integrated knowledge base that incorporates inherently grammatical as weIl as semantic and conceptual knowledge, and allows fine tuning across the different domains that speakers must deal with in language production. In event representation consideration has to be given not only to patterns of lexicalization, verb type, argument structure, but also to a cluster of factors concerning temporal relational systems that ensure specification of a time of assertion and grammatical constructions that support requirements in information distribution. An integrated knowledge base of this kind allows event representation to proceed in terms of the best possible fit with respect to core grammatical means and their functions.