The semantics of stop and quit

Stop and quit are very close in meaning, also shown by their similar syntactic

distribution. Both stop and quit appear with sentential complements under the form

of V-ing (1) but they do not allow for to-infinitive complements (2).

(1) He stopped/quit worrying about the problem.

(2) *He stopped/ *quit to worry about the problem. (Freed 1979: 109)

Freed (1979) defines the meaning of stop and quit as being closely related. This is

because they have the same presupposition: both stop and quit presuppose that the

action was in progress before we stopped or quit doing it. According to this interpretation sentence (3) including both stop and quit has as a presupposition

sentence (4). Freed states that although they have the same presupposition, the two verbs have different consequences. While the sentence with stop implies that the

event named in its complement is over but might be resumed, with quit the

sentence expresses that the event is completely over. Thus, it is only (3) which has as a consequence sentence (5); by contrast, (4) tends to have as a consequence sentence (6):

(3) As the states’s scare tactics became progressively more outrageous, we simply stopped /quit worrying about being fired. (Freed : 109)

(4) We were worrying about being fired before (or until) the state’s scare tactics

became outrageous. (Freed: 110)

(5) For a certain amount of time we were worrying about being fired. (6) We were no longer worrying about being fired. (Freed: 111)

Although both verbs tend to express a sudden end of the event expressed by the complement (Dixon, 2005, Wierzbicka, 1988) (sentences (7) and (8)), stop

165

expresses that the event is completely over. Sentence (7) points to a possible resumption of the event of the complement verb – (8), by contrast, with quit

implies definite cessation:

(7) We stopped discussing the case until some new information could be obtained. (Freed: 121) (8) Eileen really would have to settle down to love, honor and obey, and she’d have to quit drinking. (Duffley: 118)

Quit tends to express the cessation of habitual occurrences; in the example given

by Freed quit indeed expresses the cessation of a habit (that of eating peanut butter

– (9); the same situation with a one time occurrence interpretation would result in a strange sentence. Sentence (10) is awkward since eating can only be imagined to be stopped temporarily in this case:

(9) Chantal quit eating peanut butter when she went back to France.

(10) ?Chantal quit eating peanut butter when the phone rang. (Freed: 113)

Duffley (2006) agrees with the observation that quit tends to express the end of a

habitual event but also notes that the cessation expressed by quit need not

necessarily be that of a habitual occurrence. He gives examples of cases when quit

refers to the cessation of a single time occurrence (11):

(11) Leaning forward in her chair Gran nearsightedly scrutinized Dan’s face. ‘How’s Sally like rubbin’agin that thar little ticklebursh ye’re a-raising?

‘Quit ragging him him, Gran’, Gran protested. ‘I ain’t raggin him!’ Gran peered again at the week-old blond mustache shadowing Dan’s upper lip. (Duffley: 119)

Other differences between stop and quit are revealed with respect to intentionality

and causality. Although both stop and quit can express intentionality (Brinton

1991, Wierzbicka 1988)62 (as is the case in sentences sentence 16), this seems to be

62

As opposed to Freed, who notes that stop is unspecified with respect to intentionality (so that it

may express both intentional and non-intentional reading), Wierzbicka (1988: 81) states that due to its implication of suddenness, stop often leads to volitional interpretation. According to this

166

more characteristic of quit than of stop. Quit (more often than stop) requires that its

subject be an animate, agentive subject. This may explain the ungrammaticality of sentence (17), (20) or the strangeness of (19); in these sentences the subjects are inanimate. Stop, on the other hand, can appear with both animate and inanimate

subjects (consider sentences (16) and (18)):

(16) John stopped/ quit liking rock music. (Brinton 1991: 86) (17) *The sun quit shining.

(18) The sun stopped shining. (19) ?The water quit dripping.

(20)* The water quit dripping. (Freed: 114)

That quit does not appear with inanimate subjects may be explained by the fact that quit often expresses the cessation of one’s involvement or participation in some

activity. This is also the case in such contexts where quit is not an aspectualizer

(21-22). Stop often lacks this meaning of quit; when stop is not an aspectualizer its

main function is to express physical motion (23-24):

(21) You are a cheater! I quit! (Freed: 110)

(22) The Russians threatened to quit if the referee didn’t call more penalties for the

Flyers. (Freed: 111)

(23) Keith stopped at the corner to check the map.

interpretation (12) can be interpreted to express intentionality; on the contrary, (13) with cease lacks

intentionality)

(12) He stopped breathing.

(13) He ceased to breathe. (Wierzbicka: 81)

Although Egan (2003) does not accept Wierzbicka’s examples as being decisive for a differentiation between stop and cease with respect to intentionality, he considers the idea of stop + ing expressing intentionality a plausible one. Egan notes that stop often takes agentive subjects; that

is, according to him, even in cases when stop + ing appears with an inanimate subject (which he

does not include in the category of agentive subjects) this construction often acquires an agentive meaning. This is also the case in (14), which refers to the people that fire their guns; an other example could be (15):

(14) The German rifles stopped firing and Byrne, who had picked up some words of German, heard a command to evacuate the tunnel. (Egan: 223)

167

(24) The police stopped him at exit 32 of the turnpike and warned him to slow

down. (Freed:110)

Stop and quit are also different with respect to causality. Stop is considered a

causal verb, also shown by the possibility of stop to appear in causal constructions.

Sentence (25) and its paraphrase (26) show the occurrence of stop in causative

constructions. Also, middle constructions are possible as (28) shows; (29) is a possible paraphrase of the sentences (27- 28).

Contrary to stop, quit is not marked for causation; that is, quit cannot appear in

middle constructions as stop does; also, while stop allows for different subjects in

the main and subordinate clause, this is not possible for quit (30-31):

(25) The police were ordered to stop jaywalking.

(26) The police were ordered to cause jaywalking to stop. (Newmeyer: 59) (27) The water stopped dripping.

(28) The dripping of the water stopped.

(29) Someone (or something) stopped the water’s dripping. (Freed: 116) (30) Bill stopped Mary cleaning her room.

(31) *Bill quit Mary cleaning her room. (Hindsill: 171)