The Tohoku University 21st Century COE Program in Humanities:
LBC Open Lecture Series Nos. 34 and 35: Lectures on Semantics and Linguistic Theory
3-6pm, Monday, 20 March 2006, Tohoku University, Sendai, 980-8576 Japan

東北大学21世紀COEプログラム（言語認知総合科学） 第34・35回公開講演会
理論言語学講演会：「意味論と言語理論の接点」

2006年3月20日（月）午後3時〜6時, 東北大学川内北キャンパス・マルチメディア棟６Ｆホール
Program
15:00- Opening Remarks 開会の挨拶
Daiko Takahashi, Tohoku University
高橋大厚助教授（東北大学）
Invited Lecture 1
15:15-16:30
 
James Higginbotham, University of Southern California
ジェームズ・ ヒギンボサム教授（南カリフォルニア大学）
16:30-16:45 Break
Invited Lecture 2
16:45-18:00 On Intensional Verbs
 
Friederike Moltmann, University of Paris I
フレデリカ・モルトマン教授（パリ第一大学）
 
Abstracts

Remarks on the English Perfect

We assume that the English Perfect, consisting of have+past participle, may be expected to have a semantics determined by the nature of the functional head (the participle), together with whatever role, if any, may be reserved for have itself. The participle itself is involved in Adjectival word-formation as well as Verbal inflection. Supposing that both the Perfective head in sentences and that in Adjectives represent semantic operations on the elements to which they attach, the problem of the Perfect is to solve for their nature. I will offer a solution to this problem in terms of underlying states of result of events or other situations, in the spirit of Jespersen (1924). The solution is intended to unify the various uses of the Perfect recorded in various places. In the course of the discussion we shall consider the English present perfect puzzle, and more generally the interaction of the Perfect with the principles governing Sequence of Tense. An ideal solution, in the sense of preserving the Perfect as purely aspectual, rather than devolving into preterit interpretations, will be sketched and supported by the evidence from the (relatively) conservative English language. In conclusion, we note that even in more liberal languages, more than a trace of the aspectual Perfect survives.

On Intensional Verbs

This talk concerns itself with the semantics of NP-taking intensional verbs like 'need' ('John needs an assistant'). I will present a range of new data that concerns the question what quantifiers like 'something' range over when they replace the intensional NP-complement of such verbs ('John needs something'). I will argue that those data support a modal account of verbs like 'need' according to which a complement of 'need' specifies a condition on the satisfaction of the agent's needs. Moreover and more importantly the data support the view that 'something' is a 'nominalizing quantifier', introducing entities by varying degrees of abstraction, ranging from entities like 'John's needs' and satisfaction situations of John's needs to types of satisfaction situations of needs of the sort John has.