Polysemy in the meaning of come: Two senses with a common conceptual core

Transcription

1 Polysemy in the meaning of come: Two senses with a common conceptual core Jefferson Barlew Department of Linguistics The Ohio State University barlew.1@osu.edu jefferson/ Formal Semantics Meets Cognitive Semantics Nijmegen, The Netherlands January 2015

2 Acknowledgments Introduction Acknowledgments Thanks for discussions of these and related ideas, especially the analysis of standard deictic come, to Carl Pollard, Judith Tonhauser, Joost Zwarts, the audiences at Sinn und Bedeutung 2014 and the OSU Workshop on Perspective and Modal Semantics, and the OSU pragmatics group. A special thanks to the members of the OSU Project on Perspectival Expressions: Gregory Kierstead, Craige Roberts and Eric Snyder. Finally, thanks to the OSU Department of Linguistics, the College of Arts and Sciences, and the National Science Foundation (BCS ; grant to David Beaver, Craige Roberts, Mandy Simons, and Judith Tonhauser) for supporting the project financially. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

3 1. Standard deitic come Introduction 2 meanings of come Motion to or towards an interlocutor or perspective holder, the deictic center on Fillmore s terminology (Clark 1974; Fillmore 1975; Wilkins and Hill 1995; Radden 1996; Botne 2005; Oshima 2006c, b; Nakazawa 2007, 2009; Barlew 2014, inter alia) (1) [Context: The interlocutors live in New York. They are there now and will remain there. John is in Boston.] a. Guess what! John will come to New York on Tuesday. b.#guess what! John will come to Denver on Tuesday. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

4 Introduction 2 meanings of come 2. Non-deictic come (2) [Context: The interlocutors live in New York. They are there now and will remain there. John is in Boston.] John is driving from Boston to San Diego this week. He ll come to Denver on Tuesday. No interlocutor is in Denver. No perspective holder is in Denver. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

5 Goals of this talk. Introduction 2 meanings of come Develop empirical generalizations about the distribution of non-deictic come, and present a formal analysis of its meaning. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

6 Introduction 2 meanings of come Goals of this talk. Develop empirical generalizations about the distribution of non-deictic come, and present a formal analysis of its meaning. Compare the deictic and non-deictic meanings of come and account for the observed polysemy. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

7 Introduction 2 meanings of come Goals of this talk. Develop empirical generalizations about the distribution of non-deictic come, and present a formal analysis of its meaning. Compare the deictic and non-deictic meanings of come and account for the observed polysemy. Draw a general conclusion about the nature of one kind of polysemy: a single conceptual structure mapped differently to distinct lexical semantic representations. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

8 Non-deictic come J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

9 Previous research Previous research on kommen come in German Rauh 1981:58: If source and goal of a movement are specified by adverbials, then the deictic information of kommen concerning the goal may be neutralized. (3) [Context:...may be uttered in Hamburg, Göttingen, or anywhere else. (Rauh 1981:58)] Der Händler kommt jeden Samstag von Hamburg nach Göttingen The salesman comes every Saturday from Hamburg to Göttingen Every Saturday the salesman goes from Hamburg to Göttingen. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

10 Previous research German continued Antje Roßdeutscher (p.c.) confirms that kommen come has a non-deictic use, which is discussed in her Habilitationsschrift (Roßdeutscher 2000). Roßdeutscher s analysis: Both deictic and non-deictic kommen come involve a perspective holder having perceptual access to the destination of the motion event. For deictic kommen come, the perspective holder is already at the destination. For non-deictic kommen come, the mover is the perspective holder. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

11 Previous research Difference between German and English? (4) [Context: The interlocutors are standing at the top of a large hill. The speaker is recounting what happened when she stood on the hill two days ago.] Boulders were rolling down the hill. When they came to the bottom, they smashed into trees and other boulders. Here, the boulder cannot be a perspective holder. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

12 Previous research Previous research on non-deictic come in English First discussed for English by Radden (1996), for both metaphorical and physical motion: Metaphorical motion (5) Now comes the main point [Radden 1996:431] Physical motion (6) We went to London and Oxford and at last we came to Canterbury [Radden 1996:428 quoting Comrie 1985:16] J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

13 Radden s account The non-deictic sense of come Previous research Claims: Non-deictic come focuses on reaching the termination point of an ordered sequence. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

14 Previous research Radden s account Claims: Non-deictic come focuses on reaching the termination point of an ordered sequence. The deictic element of the meaning of come is simply absent. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

15 Previous research Radden s account Claims: Non-deictic come focuses on reaching the termination point of an ordered sequence. The deictic element of the meaning of come is simply absent. Central insight: Acceptable uses of non-deictic come involve an ordered sequence, i.e. a path J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

16 Problems with Radden s account Previous research Termination point is too strong: Metaphorical motion (7) Seven minutes into her presentation, Sally came to slide seventeen of thirty two. She had just three more minutes to complete the remaining fifteen slides. Physical motion (2) [Context: The interlocutors live in New York. They are there now and will remain there. John is in Boston.] John is driving from Boston to San Diego this week. He ll come to Denver on Tuesday. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

17 Problems with Radden s account Previous research Does not develop empirical generalizations about the distribution of non-deictic come. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

18 Problems with Radden s account Previous research Does not develop empirical generalizations about the distribution of non-deictic come. Let s do that now. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

19 Empirical generalizations Generalization 1: A familiar path (ordered sequence) (1b) [Context: The interlocutors live in New York. They are there now and will remain there. John is in Boston.] #Guess what! John will come to Denver on Tuesday. (2) [Context: Identical to (1b)] John is driving from Boston to San Diego this week. He ll come to Denver on Tuesday. Minimal difference: In (2), the first utterance introduces a discourse referent (dref; see e.g. Kamp 1981; Heim 1982) for a path from Boston to San Diego into the context. This path dref is familiar when come is uttered. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

20 Generalization 1: A familiar path Empirical generalizations Details of the path do not need to be entail; just its existence (8) [Context: The interlocutors are roomates sitting in their living room.] a.#guess what Ernie did this week. Yesterday, he came to a path in the woods that lead to a major road. b. Guess what Ernie did this week. He got lost in the woods for three days. However, he was very lucky. Yesterday, he came to a path that lead to a major road. A dref for Ernie s path is entailed to exist by the common ground (i.e. weakly familiar, following Roberts 2003). J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

21 Empirical generalizations Generalization 2: Motion on a subpath of the familiar path (9) [Context: The interlocutors live in New York. They are there now and will remain there. John is in Boston.] a. John is driving from Boston to San Diego this month. As part of his trip, he will come to Denver on or around the fifteenth. b.#john is driving from Boston to San Diego this month. After he gets there, he will come to Denver on or around the fifteenth. The motion path described using come must be a subpath of the familiar path, as in (9a). Call this the subpath implication. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

22 Empirical generalizations The subpath implication is not proffered content. Following tests for projectivity in Tonhauser et al Strong contextual felicity constraints J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

23 Empirical generalizations The subpath implication is not proffered content. Following tests for projectivity in Tonhauser et al Strong contextual felicity constraints Strong contextual felicity constraint (Tonhauser et al. 2013:75-6): J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

24 Empirical generalizations The subpath implication is not proffered content. Following tests for projectivity in Tonhauser et al Strong contextual felicity constraints Strong contextual felicity constraint (Tonhauser et al. 2013:75-6): m-positive context: The common ground entails m. m-neutral context: The common ground entails neither m nor m. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

25 Empirical generalizations The subpath implication is not proffered content. Following tests for projectivity in Tonhauser et al Strong contextual felicity constraints Strong contextual felicity constraint (Tonhauser et al. 2013:75-6): m-positive context: The common ground entails m. m-neutral context: The common ground entails neither m nor m. If m is projective content that that arises with the utterance of a trigger, t, and if uttering t is acceptable only in an m-positive context, then t imposes a strong contextual felicity constraint with respect to m. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

26 Empirical generalizations The subpath implication is not proffered content. Following tests for projectivity in Tonhauser et al Strong contextual felicity constraints Strong contextual felicity constraint (Tonhauser et al. 2013:75-6): m-positive context: The common ground entails m. m-neutral context: The common ground entails neither m nor m. If m is projective content that that arises with the utterance of a trigger, t, and if uttering t is acceptable only in an m-positive context, then t imposes a strong contextual felicity constraint with respect to m. Example: The anaphoric presupposition triggered by the use of English too. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

27 Empirical generalizations The subpath implication is not proffered content. Following tests for projectivity in Tonhauser et al Strong contextual felicity constraints Strong contextual felicity constraint (Tonhauser et al. 2013:75-6): m-positive context: The common ground entails m. m-neutral context: The common ground entails neither m nor m. If m is projective content that that arises with the utterance of a trigger, t, and if uttering t is acceptable only in an m-positive context, then t imposes a strong contextual felicity constraint with respect to m. Example: The anaphoric presupposition triggered by the use of English too. Projective content that does not exercise a SCFC : content of an appositive (Potts 2005; Amaral et al. 2007; Tonhauser et al. 2013; AnderBois et al. 2013) J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

28 Empirical generalizations The does not exercise an SCFC w.r.t. the subpath implication (10) m =(informally) The path to Denver is part of John s path from Boston to San Diego. (11) [(m-neutral) Context: The interlocutors live in New York. They are there now and will remain there. John is in Boston. A says John is moving to San Diego this month, and he s driving his car across the country. He will arrive in Lincoln, Nebraska on the tenth. ] He will come to Denver by the twentieth. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

29 Empirical generalizations The subpath implication is not proffered content. Testing for projection: An implication m associated with trigger t, which does not exercise a strong contextual felicity constraint, projects if m arises when t is uttered in an m-neutral context. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

30 Empirical generalizations The subpath implication is not proffered content. The subpath implication projects (family of sentences test due to Chierchia and McConnell-Ginet 1990) (10) m =(informally) The path to Denver is part of John s path from Boston to San Diego. (12) [Context: Alice and Bob live in New York. They are there now and will remain there. John is in Boston. Bob has a map of the US, and he s marking the spots where John will stop on his trip to San Diego. Alice says John will arrive in Lincoln, Nebraska on the tenth.] a. He will come to Denver by the twentieth. b.?(however) He will not [never] come to Denver by the twentieth. c. (So) He may come to Denver by the twentieth. d. If he comes to Denver by the twentieth, he will see Mary. e. Will he come to Denver by the twentieth? I don t know how long it takes to get to Denver from Lincoln. In each case, Bob will mark Denver on his map. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

31 Empirical generalizations The subpath implication is not proffered content. The subpath implication projects but does not exercise a strong felicity constraint. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

32 Empirical generalizations The subpath implication is not proffered content. The subpath implication projects but does not exercise a strong felicity constraint. Conclusion: It is either non-presupposed projective content, like a conventional implicature (Potts 2005), or it is an easily accommodated presupposition. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

33 Generalization 3: Bounded subpath Empirical generalizations (13) [Context: The interlocutors live in New York. They are there now and will remain there. John is in Boston. A says John is driving from Boston to San Diego this week...] a. He will come {to/into} Denver on Thursday. b.#he will come {through/by/past/from/toward} Denver on Thursday. Non-deictic come selects for PPs denoting bounded, goal-oriented paths (see Zwarts 2005). (The generalization may actually be that the non-deictic come selects for bounded PPs, including e.g. from, whenever the goal of the subpath is retrievable from context. Determining whether goal-orientation is part of the selectional restriction in all cases is a task for future work.) J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

34 Empirical generalizations Summary of the data Empirical generalizations for non-deictic come 1 Non-deictic come requires an anaphorically retrievable (super-)path. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

35 Empirical generalizations Summary of the data Empirical generalizations for non-deictic come 1 Non-deictic come requires an anaphorically retrievable (super-)path. 2 Non-deictic come encodes that the motion path of the coming event is motion on a subpath of the anaphorically interpreted super-path. This implication is projective. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

36 Empirical generalizations Summary of the data Empirical generalizations for non-deictic come 1 Non-deictic come requires an anaphorically retrievable (super-)path. 2 Non-deictic come encodes that the motion path of the coming event is motion on a subpath of the anaphorically interpreted super-path. This implication is projective. 3 Non-deictic come selects for PPs denoting bounded, goal-oriented paths; i.e. it requires that the subpath be bounded at the goal end. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

37 Analysis Analysis: Theoretical preliminaries Paths, following Zwarts 2005 (14) A path, p, is a function from [0,1] to locations in space, (15) represents the subpath relation (16) to r, p,t is a relation between a location and paths ending at that location (actually more complex; see Zwarts 2005 for details). It is also the denotation of to (17) In general, the denotations of directional PPs are sets of paths (type p, t ) Paths and motion events (18) Following Talmy 1985, a.o., move is a basic motion predicate taking an individual argument and denoting a set of events. (19) e is a variable over events, which are a subtype of individuals. (20) Following Zwarts 2005, trace e, p is a function from a motion event, e, to the path of its theme. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

38 Analysis Translation of an utterance with non-deictic come Translation of John come to Denver (ignoring tense): (21) a. Presupposes: a familiar dref for a path, p b. Proffers: e.move (j, e) to(d, trace(e)), where d is Denver c. Conventionally implicates: trace(e) p J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

39 Analysis Path structure encoded in the translation: (source) p (goal) trace(e) Denver Key: Highlighted = presupposed (or entailed by presupposed content) Non-highlighted = proffered Parentheses = optional J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

40 Deictic come Deictic come J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

41 Deictic come To the location of a perspective holder (22) [Context: The interlocutors are in New York now and have been all week.] a. Guess what! John came to New York on Tuesday. b.#guess what! John came to Denver on Tuesday. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

42 Analysis in Barlew 2014 Deictic come Deictic come encodes motion to/toward the self-conceived location of a relevant perspective holder, i.e. where she conceptualizes herself to be (c.f. Fillmore 1975; Oshima 2006a, c, b) at utterance or event time. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

43 Analysis in Barlew 2014 Deictic come Deictic come encodes motion to/toward the self-conceived location of a relevant perspective holder, i.e. where she conceptualizes herself to be (c.f. Fillmore 1975; Oshima 2006a, c, b) at utterance or event time. Antje Roßdeutscher (p.c.) proposes something similar for deictic kommen come in German in her Habilitationsschrift (Roßdeutscher 2000). In particular, she argues that the perspective holder must believe de se that she is located at the destination of the motion path, as I claim for English. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

44 Analysis in Barlew 2014 Deictic come Deictic come encodes motion to/toward the self-conceived location of a relevant perspective holder, i.e. where she conceptualizes herself to be (c.f. Fillmore 1975; Oshima 2006a, c, b) at utterance or event time. Antje Roßdeutscher (p.c.) proposes something similar for deictic kommen come in German in her Habilitationsschrift (Roßdeutscher 2000). In particular, she argues that the perspective holder must believe de se that she is located at the destination of the motion path, as I claim for English. (Simplifications: Avoid examples involving non-speaker perspective holders or false belief, and use examples where the speaker is at the same location at utterance and event time.) J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

45 Deictic come Analysis in Barlew 2014 Deictic come encodes motion to/toward the self-conceived location of a relevant perspective holder, i.e. where she conceptualizes herself to be (c.f. Fillmore 1975; Oshima 2006a, c, b) at utterance or event time. Antje Roßdeutscher (p.c.) proposes something similar for deictic kommen come in German in her Habilitationsschrift (Roßdeutscher 2000). In particular, she argues that the perspective holder must believe de se that she is located at the destination of the motion path, as I claim for English. (Simplifications: Avoid examples involving non-speaker perspective holders or false belief, and use examples where the speaker is at the same location at utterance and event time.) Deictic come encodes the presupposition that there is an anaphorically retrievable dref corresponding to a relevant doxastic agent at a particular time (a discourse center, following Roberts 2014). J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

46 Deictic come Deictic come: Path structures Following Barlew 2014, deictic come encodes that there is a subpath, p, of the motion event path and that its endpoint is the perspective holder s location. p must be a subpath due examples such as (23). However, for simplicity, moving forward, I stick to examples with to. Motivating subpath: (23) [Context: The interlocutors are in Denver and have been all week.] John came through Denver on his way to Utah. Change to Barlew 2014: The argument structure of deictic come to r, e, t, to account for data gathered since September Relevant for compositionality, but not for the points made here. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

47 Deictic come Translation of an utterance with deictic come Translation of John came to Denver with deictic come, ignoring tense (24) a. Presupposes: There is a familiar, salient dref corresponding to a doxastic agent, i; b. Proffers: e. p.move (j, e) p trace(e) to(d, p) c. Conventionally implicates: loc(i) = d where loc(i) is the self-conceived location of the speaker at utterance time or event time (simplifying a host of sins, mostly doxastic state-related). J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

48 Deictic come Path structure encoded in the translation: trace(e): John s path p loc(α) Denver Key: Highlighted = presupposed (or entailed by presupposed content) Non-highlighted = proffered Parentheses = optional J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

49 Accounting for polysemy Accounting for polysemy in the meaning of come J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

50 Accounting for polysemy No easy shift between semantic contents (c.f. Koontz-Garboden and Francez s (2010) treatment of syncretism in the possessive morpheme in Ulwa) Translation of John come to Denver (ignoring tense): (21) Non-deictic: a. Presupposes: a familiar dref for a path, p b. Proffers: e.move (j, e) to(d, trace(e)), where d is Denver (24) Deictic: c. Conventionally implicates: trace(e) p a. Presupposes: There is a familiar, salient dref corresponding to a doxastic agent, d i ; b. Proffers: e. p.move (j, e) p trace(e) to(d, p) c. Conventionally implicates (simplified to eliminate intentionality): loc(d i, t) = d, where t is either utterance time or event time. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

51 Accounting for polysemy Conceptual (path) structures are identical Non-deictic: (source) p trace(e) Denver (goal) Deictic: trace(e) (John s path) p loc(α) Denver J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

52 Accounting for polysemy Generalization over path structures in both senses Goal-oriented, bounded subpath Underspecified super-path Underlying shared conceptual structure (source) super path (goal) (source) subpath goal J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

53 Accounting for polysemy Locus of variation 1: Type of content Non-deictic: (source) p trace(e) Denver (goal) Deictic: trace(e) (John s path) p loc(α) Denver Highlighted = presupposed or conventionally implicated Non-highlighted = proffered J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

54 Accounting for polysemy Locus of variation 2: Mapping between event and path Non-deictic: (source) p trace(e) Denver (goal) Deictic: trace(e) (John s path) p loc(α) Denver Highlighted = presupposed or conventionally implicated Non-highlighted = proffered J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

55 References Amaral, P., Roberts, C., and Smith, E. A. (2007). Review of the The Logic of Conventional Implicatures by Chris Potts. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30: AnderBois, S., Brasoveanu, A., and Henderson, R. (2013). At-issue proposals and appositive impositions in discourse. Journal of Semantics. Barlew, J. (2014). Coming toward a doxastic agent: A doxastic analysis of the motion verb come. Presentation at Sinn und Bedeutung 19. Botne, R. (2005). Cognitive schemas and motion verbs: Coming and going in chindali (eastern bantu). 16(1): Chierchia, G. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1990). Meaning and Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Clark, E. V. (1974). Normal states and evaluative viewpoints. Language, 50(2): Fillmore, C. J. (1975). Santa Cruz lectures on Deixis. Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana. Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD thesis, University of Massachusett, Amherst. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

56 References Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Groenendijk, J., Janssen, T., and Stokhof, M., editors, Formal Methods in the Study of Language, pages Mathematische Centrum, Amsterdam. Koontz-Garboden, A. and Francez, I. (2010). Possessed properties in ulwa. Natural Language Semantics, 18: Nakazawa, T. (2007). A typology of the ground of deictic motion verbs as path-conflating verbs: the speaker, addressee, and beyond. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 43(2): Nakazawa, T. (2009). A typology of the path of deictic motion verbs as path-conflating verbs: the entailment of arrival and the deictic center. 45(3): Oshima, D. Y. (2006a). Go and come revisited: What serves as a reference point? In Proceedings of the 32nd Berkeley Linguistics Society. Oshima, D. Y. (2006b). Motion deixis, indexicality, and presupposition. In Gibson, M. and Howell, J., editors, Proceedings of SALT XVI, pages Cornell UP. Oshima, D. Y. (2006c). Perspectives in reported discourse. J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

57 References Potts, C. (2005). The Logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Radden, G. (1996). Motion metaphorized: The case of coming and going. In Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics, pages Rauh, G. (1981). On coming and going in English and German. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 13: Roberts, C. (2003). Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26: Roberts, C. (2014). Indexicals, centers, and perspective. Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, T., editor, Language Typology and Syntactic Description, volume 3. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tonhauser, J., Beaver, D., Roberts, C., and Simons, M. (2013). Towards a taxonomy of projective content. Language, 89(1): Wilkins, D. P. and Hill, D. (1995). When go means come : Questioning the basicness of basic motion verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 6: J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38

58 References Zwarts, J. (2005). Prepositional aspect and the algebra of paths. Linguistics and Philsophy, 28: J. Barlew (OSU) Polysemy in the meaning of come Jan / 38