The Progressive and the Imperfective Paradox the Eventual Outcome Strategy 1 the Motivation for the Eventual Outcome Strategy 3 Dowty's Formulation of the Eventual Outcome Strategy

Formal semantics constitutes the framework of the research presented here, and the aim is to provide a solution to the imperfective paradox; i.e. explain why \Max was running" entails \Max ran", but \Max was running home" does not entail \Max ran home". This paper is divided into two parts. In Part I we evaluate what I will call the Eventual Outcome Strategy for solving the imperfective paradox. This strategy is commonly used (Dowty 1979, Hinrichs 1983, Cooper 1985), and is highly intuitively motivated. I will show, however, that the formulations of the intuitions give rise to connicts and tensions when it comes to explaining the natural language data. In Part II we ooer a new approach to tackle the imperfective paradox that overcomes the problems with the Eventual Outcome Strategy. Aims The research pursued here ts into a programme the aim of which is to supply the formal semantics of natural language. The assumption underlying this venture is that the meaning of linguistic expressions can be characterised by deening all their possible logical consequences. Our aim is to supply a solution to a problem known as the "imperfective paradox". According to intuitions, sentence (1) entails (2), but no entailment holds between (3) and (4). (1) Max was running a business (2) Max ran a business (3) Max was building a house Many thanks are due to Barry Richards, Marc Moens and Jon Oberlander, whose responses to my work have contributed in no small way to whatever coherence exists here. The research was carried out with the support of an esrc studentship and an serc postdoctoral fellowship award. 1 2 The Progressive and the Imperfective Paradox (4) Max built a house Since (1) and (3) would seem to have similar logical forms, they ought to have similar entailments. A solution to the imperfective paradox must explain why this is not so. The imperfective paradox has serious implications for more general questions concerning natural language, for example the relationship between syntax and semantics. The progressive involves a uniform syntactic operation, and so from the perspective of formal semantics, one would expect it to be related to a uniform semantic operation. But (1) and (3) have diierent semantic import. The problem is: how can the uniformity of the progressive in syntax be squared with its semanticìrregularity'? To solve the imperfective paradox, two tasks must be achieved. First, we must characterise the semantic distinction …