Typologies of Events as the Basis of Cross-linguistic Variation

Abstract

Ritter and Rosen (2000) propose an "event-based language typology" that partitions languages into two types; I-languages and D-languages. Although events are classically divided by whether they have an initial bound, a terminal bound, both, or neither, Ritter and Rosen argue that an adequate classification can be framed by referring to a single bound of an event and that languages can similarly be typed by how they semantically represent events. I-languages privilege the initial bound, thus taking activities and accomplishments (but not achievements) as events. D-languages privilege the terminal bound, taking achievements and accomplishments (but not activities) as events. This paper argues against their claim that languages can be typed in terms of the way they represent events. That is, the eventive interpretation of a sentence is not determined by whether the language is classed as a D- or an I-language. The problem is that both properties of their typology can be observed within the same language, as shown by telicity in Chinese and Malagasy.