Need the referent of the xcomp of SEE be dynamic?

When the referent of the xcomp of SEE is a non dynamic situation there is a degree of unacceptability or ungrammaticality about the examples. There are examples in (42) of xcomps of SEE which have stative referents. They are all unacceptable.

(42) a. !we saw Rome stand on the Tiber b. !we saw Jane nasty to Peter c. !we saw Peter own a car

The reason why the referent o f the xcomp of an instance of SEE has to be dynamic is that the referent of the instance o f SEE and the referent of its xcomp have to be simultaneous (subject to the caveats discussed in 3.4.3), and it is impossible for a seeing situation to be co-extensive with a state. A state is potentially timeless. That is, the temporal bounds o f a stative situation do not exist within the temporal bounds o f human experience, yet perception is entirely delimited within the bounds of human, physical, experience. The constraint on stativit) must be stated in these terms.

The requirement that the referent of the xcomp of an instance o f SEE should be dynamic can be overridden given the right context. There are examples in (43).

(43) a. we saw Jane be nasty to Peter

b. Jane saw Peter own a car for all of 5 minutes once

(examples after Felser 1994)

In (43a), a situation that is typically stative has become re-interpreted as a dynamic situation. The difference between (43a) and (43b) is roughly equivalent to the difference between (44a) and (44b). In (44b), the referent of the stative predicate NASTY has been reclassified as a dynamic situation.

(44) a. Jane is nasty to Peter (stative referent) b. Jane is being nasty to Peter (dynamic referent)

In the case of (43 b), the temporal adverbial limits the owning situation and makes it possible for the verb own to be the xcomp of see. It is not the case, however, that temporally bounding the referent of own makes the referent of own into a dynamic situation. Even when it is temporally bounded by an adverbial, own is not typically dynamic, for it cannot occur in the progressive. (45) is an unacceptable sentence.

(45) ! Peter was owning a car for all of 5 minutes once

A verb with a stative referent can be the xcomp o f an instance of SEE if it is temporally limited or if it is reclassified as a dynamic situation.

Furthermore, (45) shows us that temporally limiting a state does not by itself cause it to be reinterpreted as a dynamic situation. From the point of view of the temporal semantics of ‘se e l’, this suggests that the significant factor is that either the whole situation has to be perceivable or that a linguistically relevant part of it has to be perceivable. As far as the temporal duration o f seeing is concerned, (43b) is significant because the temporal adverbial fo r all o f 5 minutes once, which is the dependent of own, also limits the duration of the seeing situation, which must therefore be co-temporal with the owning situation. This fact is further support for the

conclusion that the constraint on the xcomp of an instance of SEE is not that its referent should be dynamic but that its referent should be o f a perceivable duration.

There are other cases where verbs with stative referents can occur as the xcomps o f instances of SEE. There is a sample in (46) and (47).

(46) a. seeing Jane own a car at last brings tears to my eyes b. it is a delight to see Jane own a car at last

c. I have seen Jane own a car before; it all ended in tears (47) a. seeing Jane owning her own car brings tears to my eyes

b. it is a delight to see Jane owning a car at last

c. I have seen Jane owning a car before; it all ended in tears

In these cases, the stative own of (46) and the stative owning of (47) are both xcomps of the instances o f SEE. They are not adjuncts of Jane. In all of the cases, Jane could be replaced by a pronoun and pronouns cannot have adjuncts. Therefore, in none of the cases is owning a participial relative; it is an xcomp.

The examples in (46) and (47) are clear evidence that the restriction on the referent o f the xcomp of an instance of SEE cannot be stated in terms o f dynamicity. It can, however, be stated in terms of duration. For some reason, the semantics of own in (46) and the semantics o f owning in (47) are compatible with the semantics of the non-finite seeing, see and seen of (46) and (47). We cannot investigate whether own and owning would be compatible with a progressive instance of SEE because there are none when the sense of SEE is ‘seel’. On the other hand, this phenomenon cannot be restricted to non-finite instances of SEE because of the examples in (48).

(48) a. !I can see Jane own a car

b. I can see Jane owning a car (ref. of see is not ‘s e e l’)

(48a) is unacceptable; in (48b) the sense of see is not ‘seel’ but is, in fact, ‘imagining’. In this case, Jane owning a car refers to a proposition and not a situation.

However, it is possible to examine the question in terms of temporal deixis. The referent of the xcomp of an instance o f SEE is required to be temporally bounded if the instance o f SEE is temporally deictic. This accounts for the fact that (48a) is unacceptable. There is only a requirement on the temporal nature of the referent of the xcomp of SEE when the temporal nature of SEE itself is in question. There is no straightforward way of referring to a present time instance of seeing, except with the collocation CAN + SEE. Uniquely among the modals it is possible for the referent of CAN to be a present time instance of the sense o f the xcomp of CAN. A CAN + SEE sequence is temporally deictic as the example in (49a) shows.

(49) a. I can see the “Mona Lisa” (even over the crowds’ heads) b. I saw the “Mona Lisa”

(49a) entails that my seeing the “Mona Lisa” is co-extensive with the time of the utterance; (49b) entails that I saw the “Mona Lisa” at a time wholly in the past in relation to the time of the utterance. It is possible for (49a) to be temporally deictic, although the root of the sentence is can because can has an ability meaning here, and to be able to see something at a particular point in time must entail that you are seeing it.TKis sense of CAN is temporally deictic; we see that the past tense form of CAN, when CAN means ability, has past time reference. I discuss the semantics of SEE and CAN in section 3.6 below.

It is clear why the referent of the xcomp o f an instance of SEE only has to be temporally limited when the instance of SEE is deictic. An instance of seeing that is located in time has a duration, irrespective o f the fact that its duration is constrained by the percept. Given that it has a duration, it is only possible to see some sub-part of a state physically. If the duration of the instance o f seeing is not temporally deictic, then the respective durations of the situations are irrelevant and the referent of the xcomp o f the instance of SEE may be a state. We can see, therefore, that Declerck’s (1981) assertion that examples like those in (46) and (47) should be ignored is false. They are relevant, because they demonstrate that ‘seel ’ does not require its ee to be eventive, it merely requires its ee to be temporally limited to a duration within a

perceivable range. It is for this reason that temporally bounded states are acceptable as the referents of xcomps o f temporally deictic instances of SEE.