Еxternal and internal states. Exploring the predicate taxonomy

I address the issues in predicate taxonomies with focus on the class of states. In the 1960-s, Donald Davidson defined states as a kind of spatiotemporal things that holds during a time interval [Davidson 1980]. If p is a state and holds in some locus during an interval starting from t0 and ending in tn, that means p is true in this locus for every time point ti Î {t0…tn}, so that p consists of homogeneous phases, cf. [Maienborn 2007]. Later predicate taxonomies rooting in Davidson usually add to the distinction of spatiotemporal vs non-spatiotemporal things another dimension — the distinction of dynamic vs static situations in the spirit of [Vendler 1957]. Dynamic situations were initially claimed to have an endpoint, i.e. a point of transition from p to ~ p, contrary to stative situations. This criterion does not work since all spatiotemporal things have an endpoint according to the Davidsonian analysis. However, the contrast between all types of dynamic predicates and Davidsonian states is captured by the homogeneity criterion: Davidsonian states consist of homogeneous phases, while dynamic predicates do not. Davidsonian taxonomies leave a possibility of classifying states into different types. This is done in [Bulygina 1982: 82 — 85] and [Seliverstova 1982: 93 – 97], who distinguish spatiotemporal vs non-spatiotemporal stative situations: the latter, called свойства or качества are analyzed as names of properties abstracted from any referential situations. The idea that the absence of agreement on a nominal predicate encodes the distinction of spatiotemporal vs non-spatiotemporal stative situations in Russian was first introduced in 1928 by Lev Ščerba who dubbed spatiotemporal prediсates состояния, i.e ‘states’ and non-spatiotemporal predicates качества. i.e. ‘properties’. The same distinction under the cover terms ‘stage-level predicates” (SLP) vs ‘individual-level predicates’ (ILP) was reintroduced 50 years later by Greg Carlson [Carlson 1977], cf. [Kratzer 1995]. The basic subcategorization of SLPs in Russian and in general is the distinction of internal vs external SLPs [Zimmerling 2018a]. There are three relevant criteria: (i) Internal SLPs denote situations with a priority semantic argument (semantic subject), external SLPs lack it. (ii) External SLPs can be quantified based on their spatiotemporal characteristics, internal SLPs can be only quantified on their semantic subjects. (iii) External SLPs denote sensually (visually or audibly) perceived situations, internal SLPs do not. Comments. The term 'internal states' is borrowed from Anna Zaliznjak's book (1992), who considers a different class of stative predicates and develops a different approach basing on Vendler's classification, not on Davidson. I stick to the term 'internal state' in the descriptions of Russian predicatives in Zimmerling (1998, 1999). The subcategorization of D-states into external and internal is specially addressed in my papers Zimmerling (2014, 2018), though I do not use the cover term 'D-state' there. The identification of D-states with SLP-predicates and the relation of Davidsonian holistic ontology to Carlson's and Ščerba's partial ontologies is taken in my papers Zimmerling (2021, 2022, 2023) and in Federico Silvagni's works which I unfortunately did not know at the time of the publication. See the 'related works' section. This identification is not accepted by Claudia Maienborn, who represents the neo-Davidsonian tradition. The works of Davidson on some reasons had lesser impact on Russian linguistics than the works of Vendler. Neither Bulygina (1982), not Seliverstova (1982) directly cite them, though the latter proposes an ontology very similar to Davidson, and both authors implement the notions of event and situation in their ontologies.本文聚焦状态类范畴，探讨谓词分类体系中存在的若干问题。20世纪60年代，唐纳德·戴维森（Donald Davidson）将状态定义为一类在某一时间区间内存续的时空实体[Davidson 1980]。若某状态p在某一场所内的区间[t0, tn]中存续，则意味着对于该区间内的每一时间点ti属于{t0…tn}，p在该场所中都为真，即p由一系列同质时段构成[Maienborn 2007]。此后，以戴维森理论为基础的谓词分类体系，通常在时空实体与非时空实体的区分之外，新增了另一维度——即遵循[Vendler 1957]的思路，对动态与静态情境做出区分。最初学界认为，动态情境拥有终结点，即从状态p转变为非p的时间点，而静态情境则无此特征。但这一判定标准并不成立，因为根据戴维森式分析，所有时空实体均存在终结点。不过，各类动态谓词与戴维森式状态之间的差异，可以通过同质性标准加以区分：戴维森式状态由同质时段构成，而动态谓词则不具备这一特征。戴维森式分类体系允许对状态进行进一步的子类划分，这一工作由[Bulygina 1982: 82–85]与[Seliverstova 1982: 93–97]完成，二者区分了时空性与非时空性静态情境：其中非时空性静态情境被称为свойства（属性）与качества（特质），被分析为从任意指称情境中抽象出的属性名称。列夫·谢尔巴（Lev Ščerba）于1928年首次提出：俄语中名词谓词的一致关系缺失，可用来区分时空性与非时空性静态情境——他将时空性谓词称为состояния（即“状态”），非时空性谓词称为качества（即“属性”）。50年后，格雷格·卡尔森（Greg Carlson）以“阶段层面谓词（stage-level predicates, SLP）”与“个体层面谓词（individual-level predicates, ILP）”为统称，重新提出了这一区分[Carlson 1977]，参见[Kratzer 1995]。俄语乃至通用语境下的阶段层面谓词，其基本子类划分是内部SLP与外部SLP的区分[Zimmerling 2018a]。相关判定标准共有三项：(1) 内部SLP所指称的情境带有优先语义论元（即语义主语），而外部SLP则无此特征；(2) 外部SLP可依据其时空特征进行量化，内部SLP仅能以其语义主语为依据进行量化；(3) 外部SLP指称可被感官（视觉或听觉）感知的情境，内部SLP则不具备这一属性。 注释。 “内部状态”这一术语源自安娜·扎利兹尼亚克（Anna Zaliznjak）1992年的著作，她所研究的是另一类静态谓词，其理论基于文德勒的分类体系，而非戴维森的理论。在齐默林（Zimmerling）1998、1999年对俄语谓词的相关论述中，我沿用了“内部状态”这一术语。尽管我并未在这些论文中使用“D-状态”这一统称，但我在Zimmerling 2014、2018的研究中专门探讨了将D-状态（戴维森式状态）划分为内部与外部子类的问题。将D-状态等同于SLP谓词，以及戴维森式整体本体论与卡尔森和谢尔巴的局部本体论之间的关联，相关论述见于我Zimmerling 2021、2022、2023年的论文，以及费德里科·西尔瓦尼（Federico Silvagni）的研究成果——遗憾的是，在我发表这些论文时，我尚未知晓西尔瓦尼的相关工作。详见“相关研究”部分。这一等同关系并未被新戴维森传统的代表人物克劳迪娅·迈恩博恩（Claudia Maienborn）所认可。由于某些原因，戴维森的研究对俄罗斯语言学界的影响不及文德勒的研究。布利吉娜（Bulygina 1982）与谢列斯托娃（Seliverstova 1982）均未直接引用戴维森的著作，尽管后者提出的本体论与戴维森的本体论极为相似，且两位作者均在其本体论中引入了事件与情境的概念。