1

Slightly gradable: The semantics of degree modifier čut'

OLGA KAGAN

LAVI WOLF

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

Abstract:

The present paper investigates the degree item čut' in Russian, which can be tentatively

translated as 'slightly' or 'a bit'. Its properties are of interest because it can appear in range of

different domains. We show that it can be found in the AP, VP, AspP and NegP areas. We argue

that in all these domains, čut' makes the same semantic contribution. Specifically, it applies to a

predicate that has a degree argument as part of its semantics and contributes the entailment that

this degree slightly exceeds the standard of comparison on the relevant scale. When combined

with negated VPs, čut' applies to a likelihood scale, which results in a reading comparable to that

of the counterfactual almost. The investigation of this degree modifier points to the linguistic

relevance of scale structure across domains.

1 Introduction In the past several decades, the crucial role that scalarity plays in natural language semantics has

been revealed. Degree semantics has been employed in the linguistic literature largely in order to

capture semantic-pragmatic properties of gradable adjectives (cf. e.g. Kennedy 1999, 2007, Rett

2008, McNally 2011, Sassoon and van Rooij 2012 and references therein). However, linguistic

relevance of scale structure has also been shown to extend beyond the adjectival domain. Thus,

degree semantics allows to capture a wide range of phenomena within the verbal, nominal and

even prepositional domains (cf. e.g. Hay et al. 1999, Kennedy and Levin 2002, 2008, Filip and

Rothstein 2006, Filip 2008, Rappaport Hovav 2008, 2011, 2013, Piñón 2008, Caudal and Nicolas

2005, Kearns 2007, Beavers 2007, 2012, Kagan to appear, Greenberg 2010, Qtit 2014.)

In this context, investigation of degree modifiers plays an important part. It contributes to our

understanding of the role of scales in natural language semantics, the range of domains in which

gradability is linguistically relevant and the parallelism between these domains. In this paper we

investigate the degree item čut' in Russian, which, under its most basic use, can be tentatively

translated to English as 'slightly' or 'a bit'. Its properties are of interest because it can appear in a

range of different domains. Below, we argue that it can be found in the AP, VP, AspP and NegP

areas. Crucially, we argue that in all these domains the item fulfills essentially the same degree

modification function. Thus, one goal of the present study is to render support to the fact that

scale structure is linguistically relevant across syntactic categories.

2

In order to appreciate the wide range of uses associated with čut', consider the examples below:

(1) a. Polotence okazalos' čut' vlažnym. adjectival čut'

towel appeared čut' wet

'The towel appeared to be slightly wet.'

b. ...intensivnost' čut' umen'šilas'... verbal čut'

intensity čut' lowered

'The intensity lowered a little.'

c. čut' Alex ušel, (kak) prišlo pis'mo ot Iriny Nikolaevny. temporal čut'

čut' Alex left as arrived letter from Irina Nikolaevna

'As soon as Alex left, a letter from Irina Nikolaevna arrived.'

d. Tom čut' ne upal. negative čut'

Tom čut' neg fell

'Tom almost fell (down).'

A question emerges as to whether a uniform analysis can be developed that would cover the use

of čut' in all these environments. In what follows, we argue that in all these cases we deal with

the same item, while what varies is the environment in which it appears and the type of the

constituent to which it applies1.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 1 we introduce basic terms and concepts related to

scale structure that will be used below. The following sections are devoted to the four uses of čut'

illustrated above. Section 2 is dedicated to adjectival čut', which we take to be the most basic use

of this item. Section 3 extends the discussion to the verbal domain. In Section 4, temporal čut' is

discussed. We argue that this reading results when čut' operates on the level of Asp(ect)P and

applies to a time scale. Section 4 is devoted to negative čut'. Unifying this type with the other

uses of čut' is not trivial. Still, we show that negative čut' shares a range of meaning components

with the remaining three uses and propose a direction for formulating a unified analysis. Section

5 concludes the discussion.

1. Classification of Scales

Following recent linguistic literature, we assume that gradable adjectives, such as tall, big and

expensive, lexicalize scales. Formally, a scale constitutes a set of degrees (abstract

representations of measurement) that are totally ordered along some dimension (e.g. height,

duration, temperature, etc.) A sentence of the form x is AP, where AP consists of an adjective in

its positive form, entails that x is mapped to a degree on the corresponding scale that is identical

to or higher than the standard of comparison. The nature of the latter depends on the type of

scale, as will be discussed below.

1 In addition to čut', Russian employs the reduplicated version čut'-čut'. While in some cases, the two can be used

interchangeably, in others, only one is acceptable. Thus, only čut' is possible under the temporal use; also, under the

negative use, čut' is highly preferable, even though it can be substituted by čut'-čut' in some instances. In this paper,

I concentrate on the non-reduplicated item čut'.

3

Scales may differ along a whole range of properties, including dimension (e.g. tall lexicalizes a

scale of height and expensive, a scale of price), the ordering relation (which distinguishes e.g. tall

as opposed to short), etc. Another distinction, which will play an important role below

(particularly in the section devoted to the adjectival domain) is based on the existence (or non-

existence) of lower and upper endpoints. The classification that we will assume is based on

Kennedy and McNally (2005). For closely related classifications, see also Cruse (1980), Yoon

(1996) and Rotstein and Winter (2004).

(i) Lower-closed scales

Lower-closed scales are scales that have a minimal value but lack a maximal one. For instance,

such a scale is lexicalized by the adjective dirty. An entity can be absolutely clean, which means

that it is characterized by zero dirtiness (hence a zero value on the scale). However, there is no

maximal degree of dirtiness: intuitively, however dirty an object is, it can potentially become

even dirtier than that. Thus, the maximal degree of dirtiness does not exist.

With adjectives that lexicalize lower-closed scales, a sentence of the form x is AP entails that x

possesses the property in question to a non-zero degree. In other words, a minimal degree that is

above the zero value is sufficient to make the sentence true. The lower end of the scale is

therefore taken to constitute the minimum standard.

(ii) Upper-closed scales

Adjectives like clean lexicalize upper-closed scales, scales that have a maximal but not a

minimal value. For instance, an entity can be absolutely, 100% clean, which means that it is

mapped to the maximal possible degree of cleanliness. Intuitively, however, there is no minimal

degree of cleanliness (which would correspond to maximal dirtiness).

With such adjectives, a sentence of the form x is AP entails that the subject is characterized by

the corresponding gradable property to the maximal degree2. These are maximum standard

adjectives.

(iii) Totally open scales

Such adjectives as tall, clever and expensive lexicalize totally open scales which lack both the

upper and the lower boundary. With these adjectives, a sentence of the form x is AP entails that x

exceeds (or at least does not fall short of) a contextually provided, relative standard. This

standard is determined relative to the relevant comparison class and, under different views, is

analyzed as the average value for the class members, a degree that corresponds to a norm of A-

ness, a degree that is sufficient for the argument to "stand out" in respect to the relevant property,

etc. Thus, roughly speaking, the sentence John is tall entails that his height exceeds the average

or norm assigned to tallness in the given context. A detailed discussion of the relative standard

and different approaches to its nature can be found in Kennedy (2007) and Sassoon and van

Rooij (2012).

2 It should be emphasized that this view has been challenged in the literature, c.f. e.g., McNally (2011) and Toledo

and Sassoon (2011). Although the intuition that maximum standard adjectives are linked to the maximal point on the

scale is well-motivated, in some cases, a lower point seems to function as the standard. Ways in which such

adjectives can be linked to non-maximal points are also contributed by Sauerland and Stateva (2007), Lasersohn

(1999) and Morzycki (2011).

4

The relative standard, which is contextually provided and inherently vague, is contrasted with

absolute standards (the minimum and the maximum ones), which do not depend on the context

and are objectively defined as the minimal and the maximal degrees on the scale3.

2. Adjectival čut' This section examines the distribution and semantic contribution of čut' in the adjectival domain.

2.1 Adjectives in the Positive Form čut' is perfectly compatible with minimum standard adjectives, which lexicalize lower-closed

scales. A search in National Corpus of Russian renders such phrases as the following: čut'

izognutyj 'slightly bent', čut' zametnyj 'slightly noticeable, čut' vypuklyj 'a bit protruding', čut'

slyšnyj 'slightly audible', čut' sonnyj 'a bit sleepy', čut' šeršavyj 'a bit rough', čut' vlažnyj 'a bit

wet'4. The resulting phrases denote a set of individuals that possess the property lexicalized by

the adjective to a very low degree. The degree is entailed to exceed the lower boundary of the

scale but, at the same time, to be very close to this boundary.

Two points should be made regarding the combination of čut' with minimum standard

adjectives:

1. x is čut' P entails that x is P. This is illustrated below:

(2) a. Polotence čut' vlažnoe.

towel čut' wet

'The towel is a bit wet.' ENTAILS:

b. Polotence vlažnoe.

towel wet

'The towel is wet.'

(3) a. Linija čut' izognuta.

line čut' bent

'The line is slightly curved.' ENTAILS:

b. Linija izognuta.

line bent

'The line is curved.'

3 Kennedy and McNally (2005) also define totally closed scales, which have both the minimal and the maximal

value. Such scales are lexicalized by the adjectives open, closed, empty, full. Here, it depends on the individual

adjective whether it will use the minimal or the maximal degree as the standard. 4 It is worth noting that with some minimum standard adjectives čut' is unacceptable but the reduplicated čut'-čut' is

fine.

5

2. The argument of a čut'-AP is entailed to possess the property lexicalized by the adjective to a

very low degree. While this degree is above zero, it is very close to zero. In other words, the

distance between the degree to which the argument is mapped and the minimum standard is

particularly small.

We can tentatively represent the semantics of (3a) as in (4a). The meaning of (3b) is provided in

(4b) for the sake of comparison. It can be seen from the formulae that the entailment relation

between the two sentences indeed holds as specified above.

(4) a. ∃d [bent(d)(the line) & d >C min(Sbent)]

where Sbent is the scale lexicalized by the predicate bent

and >C stands for the 'higher than and very close to' relation.

b. ∃d [bent(d)(the line) & d > min(Sbent)]

Note that for every d and d' it holds that d >C d' entails d > d'. In prose, if d is higher than and

close to d', then d is higher than d'. It therefore follows that (4a) entails (4b).

Let us now turn to additional types of scales. čut' is incompatible with adjectives that lexicalize

upper-closed scales, such as čistyj 'clean' and rovnyj 'straight':

(5) a. #Eta komnata čut' čistaja.

this room čut' clean

b. #Eta doroga čut' rovnaja.

this road čut' straight

Analogously, čut' is generally bad with relative adjectives, which lexicalize totally open scales in

their positive form, such as vysokij 'tall' and dorogoj 'expensive':

(6) a. #Lena čut' vysokaja.

Lena čut' tall

b. #Eta kniga čut' dorogaja.

this book čut' expensive

2.1 čut' with Modified Adjectives

The facts illustrated above do not mean that the distribution of čut' is limited to minimum

standard adjectives. This item can also apply to adjectives of other types if the latter do not

appear in their simple, positive form, but rather combine with certain degree modifiers. In other

words, čut' can appear on top of certain degree modifying expressions. For instance, it can

combine with comparative adjectives, as is illustrated in (7):

(7) a. Miša čut' vyše Leny.

Misha čut' taller LenaGEN

'Misha is slightly taller than Lena.'

b. Novaja kniga čut' bolee interesna, čem staraja.

6

new book čut' more interesting than old

'The new book is a bit more interesting than the old one.'

čut' applies to an adjective that has already combined with comparative morphology in (7a) and

with the comparative expression bolee...čem 'more...than' in (7b). Here, the standard of

comparison is linguistically provided by the comparative phrase. For instance, it corresponds to

Lena's (maximal) height in (7a). Due to the comparative modification, the subject is entailed to

be mapped to a degree on the scale that exceeds this standard. The presence of čut' further

specifies that the distance between the two degrees is very small. Thus, in (7a), while Miša is

entailed to be taller than Lena, his height exceeds Lena's very slightly. The truth conditions of

(7a) can be represented as in (7):

(8) ∃d ∃d' [tall(d)(misha) & tall(d')(lena) & d >C d']

Once again, x is čut' P entails that x is P. For instance, (7a) entails that Misha is taller than Lena:

Miša čut' vyše Leny. ⇾ Miša vyše Leny.

'Misha is a bit taller than Lena.' 'Misha is taller than Lena.'

In addition, čut' applies to adjectives that, in the presence of an additional degree modifier,

receive a meaning of excess, comparable to the one triggered by the English degree item too.

This holds mainly for relative adjectives modified by the suffix -ovat. As argued by Kagan and

Alexeyenko (2011a,b), when this suffix attaches to relative adjectives, the resulting interpretation

can be paraphrased as 'slightly too A'. This is illustrated by such pairs as vysokij 'tall' -

vysokovatyj 'slightly too tall', dorogoj 'expensive' - dorogovatyj 'somewhat too expensive', etc.

Kagan and Alexeyenko propose that in this environment, -ovat applies to the functional standard.

This standard represents the maximal value that "is compatible with certain (contextually given)

goals or desires” (Heim 2000: 19). The suffix makes sure that the degree to which the property

holds of an argument slightly exceeds the functional standard.

čut' is compatible with adjectives of this kind:

(9) Eti tufli čut' velikovaty.

these shoes čut' big-ovat

'These shoes are a bit too big.'

In sentences like (9) the subject is mapped to a degree that is slightly higher than the functional

standard. In other words, it is entailed to slightly exceed whatever is required by the situation.

The resulting meaning thus seems to be very similar to that of the analogous sentence without

čut' (e.g. the meaning of 9 is close to that of 10).

(10) Eti tufli velikovaty.

these shoes big-ovat

'These shoes are slightly too big.'

7

The impression is that čut' does not make any semantic contribution in sentences of this type;

rather, there is a kind of semantic agreement between its meaning and a certain meaning

component of -ovat. In fact, however, the truth conditions of (9) and (10) are not identical. While

(10) entails that the difference between the actual and the desirable size of the shoes is not big,

(9) makes sure that it is particularly, especially small. In other words, in any given context, the

denotation of čut' velikovaty constitutes a proper subset of the denotation of velikovaty (which, in

turn, is a proper subset of the set denoted by veliki 'too big').

Once again, we can note that a sentence with čut' entails its counterpart without this degree item,

e.g. (9) entails (10). According to (9), the shoes belong to a proper subset of velikovaty

'somewhat too big'. Trivially, this means that they belong to the set denoted by velikovaty (which

is asserted in 10). Thus, (9) entails (10).

2.3 A Uniform Analysis of Adjectival čut'

On the basis of the data discussed in the previous subsections, we can conclude that čut' is

systematically associated with the following meaning components:

(i) čut' specifies that the argument possesses the property denoted by the AP to a degree that

exceeds the standard of comparison (the latter is independently provided by the environment).

čut' further specifies that the distance between these two degrees is very small.

(ii) For every A, it holds that: x is čut' A ⇾ x is A.

The entailment relation represented in (ii) has been shown to hold in all the environments

mentioned above in which čut' is acceptable. The meaning component in (i) also systematically

accompanies čut'. Whether the standard is the lower boundary of a scale, a linguistic standard

supplied e.g. by the comparative bolee...čem 'more than' phrase or the functional standard, the

degree to which the argument is mapped is consistently entailed to be located slightly above this

standard.

Formally, the semantics of adjectival čut' is represented in (11), where the standard of

comparison (ds) is to be provided by the environment which includes pragmatic context:

(11) [[čut']] = λPλx.∃d [P(d)(x) & d >C ds]

The compositional semantics of (12) below is provided in (12').

(12) Eta linija čut' izognuta.

this line čut' bent

'This line is slightly curved.'

(12') [[čut']] = λPλx.∃d [P(d)(x) & d >C ds]

[[izognuta]] = λd'λy.bent(d')(y)

[[čut']]([[izognuta]]) = λx.∃d [bent(d)(x) & d >C ds]

The function applies to the standard of comparison associated with the stem, and we get:

λx.∃d [bent(d)(x) & d >C min(Sbent)]

8

[[čut' izognuta]]([[eta linija]]) = ∃d [bent(d)(this-line) & d >C min(Sbent)]

The proposed analysis captures the incompatibility of čut' with maximum standard and relative

adjectives in their positive form. This incompatibility essentially means that čut' cannot apply to

the maximal degree on a scale and to a relative, comparison-class-based, standard, associated

with open-scale adjectives. The first observation is particularly easy to explain. čut' relates the

argument to a degree that is higher than the standard. However, if the standard constitutes the

maximal value on the scale, it is impossible to possess the property to a higher degree, not even

to a slightly higher one. Kagan and Alexeyenko (2011a,b) argue that -ovat cannot apply to this

kind of standard for exactly the same reason.

The case with the relative standard is a bit more complex, but here too, a reason for

incompatibility is available. In particular, the relative standard is known to be characterized by a

particularly high degree of vagueness. Where exactly does he boundary between tallness and

lack of tallness lie? Even once the context is fixed and the comparison class is determined, there

remains the famous problem of borderline cases: for some individuals whose tallness is close to

the standard, it is still difficult to determine whether they fall under the denotation of tall. (Cf.

Kennedy (1999) and (2007), Sassoon and van Rooij (2012) and references therein for a

discussion of the vague nature of the relative standard.) The precise boundary is difficult or

plausibly even impossible to determine, and speakers will disagree with one another as to where

exactly it should be located. Given this kind of inherent vagueness, how can we guarantee that a

degree to which an individual is mapped is higher than and at the same time very close to the

standard? Since the location of the standard is unknown, it is impossible to measure a distance

between this and another value with a high degree of precision, nor to guarantee that such a

distance is indeed extremely small, in some sense minimal. Further, given that the distance

should be small, it is impossible to guarantee that the standard is indeed lower that the second

value. Since the two degrees are close and one of them is plausibly "floating" on the scale

without having a fixed position, how can we be certain that one is slightly lower than the other

(and not identical to it or even slightly higher)?

In the linguistic literature, additional degree modifiers have been claimed to be incompatible

with the relative standard for the same reason (cf. e.g. Rotstein and Winter (2004) on almost,

Kagan and Alexeyenko (2011a,b) on -ovat). Specifically, this holds for those degree modifiers

that involve a proximity meaning component. We assume that čut' is no different in this respect5.

3. Verbal čut' The modifier čut' can also appear within verbal projections and apply to VP semantics. This is

illustrated in the following sentences from the National Corpus of Russian:

5 Note that the functional standard is not characterized by the same degree of vagueness. It is normally associated

with a fixed value required for - or compatible with - the relevant purpose. Therefore, proximity inducing degree

modifiers can apply to this type of standard. See Kagan and Alexeyenko (2011a,b) and Bylinina (2012) for

discussion.

9

(13) a. ...voda k tomu vremeni uže uspela čut' ostyt'.

water to that time already had-time čut' cool

'By that time the water had already cooled a bit.'

b. V etot moment ščolknul zamok, i dver' čut' priotkrylas'.

in this moment clicked lock and door čut' opened

'At this moment the lock snapped, and the door opened a bit.'

c. ...intensivnost' čut' umen'šilas'...

intensity čut' lowered

'The intensity lowered a little.'

The clauses in which čut' appears entail that one of the arguments (in all these examples, the

subject) undergoes a certain change (in temperature, in openness and in size, respectively). čut'

specifies that the change is very small. In other words, it measures the change that takes place in

the argument.

The most natural way to capture the semantics of verbal čut' is by relating to the notion of a

degree of change, introduced by Kennedy and Levin (2002). (An analogous notion applied

specifically to degree achievements is defined by Hale et al. (1999) and Kennedy and Levin

(2008).) They argue for the existence of a type of verbs, verbs of gradual change, that

contribute scales to sentential semantics. Such verbs denote a change that takes place along a

scale, i.e. a change in the degree to which an argument is characterized by a gradable property.

More precisely, the argument is entailed to possess the property at the end of the event to a

higher degree than at its beginning (cf. also Rothstein 2008). For instance, the verb widen

denotes a change in the degree to which its argument is wide. At the beginning of the event the

subject is entailed to be less wide than at the endpoint of the event. The semantics of verbs of

gradual change involves a ‘degree of change argument’, the degree to which a participant

undergoes an increase in the relevant property between the beginning point of the event and its

endpoint. One way to represent the semantics of such verbs is illustrated in (14) for the verb

widen. (15b) provides the truth conditions of (15a). The formalism is based on Kennedy and

Levin (2008) and Kennedy (2010), slightly adapted in order to fit the framework assumed in this

paper; the examples are based on Kennedy (2010:8-10).

(14) [[widen]] = λdλxλe.wide△(d)(x)(e)

where wide△ is a function that for a degree d, individual x and event e renders as

the output the truth value of the proposition x has widened to degree d in the

course of e.

(15) a. The canyon widened 30 kilometers.

b. Ǝe [wide△(30km)(the-canyon)(e)]

Kennedy and Levin (2008) further propose that the degree of change can be treated as a degree

on a derived scale, which is identical to the scale originally introduced by the predicate except

for the fact that its lower boundary is reset to the degree associated with the beginning point of

the event. This is the degree to which the argument possesses the gradable property at the time

when the event begins. This degree corresponds to a zero change. Any degree that is higher than

this minimal point corresponds to an increase that takes place in the course of the event.

10

We are now in the position to account for the contribution of čut' in sentences like (13). This

item measures the change that an argument undergoes along a scale by imposing a restriction on

the degree of change argument of the verb. In particular, it specifies that the degree of change is

very low. The change does take place, and so the degree of change is higher than zero, but at the

same time it is very close to zero. Naturally, this contribution is very close to the contribution of

čut' within the adjectival domain. Here, čut' applies to a predicate that lexicalizes a lower-closed

scale and provides the same information about the degree argument of the predicate as it does

with gradable adjectives. The degree to which the argument is mapped is entailed to be slightly

higher than the standard of comparison (in this case, the lower boundary of the scale).

Formally, we propose that verbal čut' has essentially the same semantics as its adjectival

counterpart, except for the fact that this time it combines with properties of events; therefore, an

event argument is added to the degree and individual type arguments that were present in the

adjectival domain. Further, the standard of comparison for verbal čut' is fixed as the lower

boundary on the derived scale, the one along which the degree of change is measured. The

compositional semantics of (13c), repeated below as (16), is provided in (16'):

(16) Intensivnost' čut' umen'šilas'.

intensity čut' lowered

'The intensity lowered a little.'

(16') [[čut']] = λPλxλe.∃d [P(d)(x)(e) & d >C min(SP)]

[[umen'šilas']] = λd'λyλe'.low△(d')(y)(e')

[[čut']]([[umen'šilas']]) = λxλe.∃d [low△(d)(x)(e) & d >C min(Slow△)]

[[čut' izoumen'šilas']]([[intensivnost']]) = λe.∃d [low△(d)(the-intensity)(e) & d >C

min(Slow△)]

The event variable gets bound by existential closure:

[[Intensivnost' čut' umen'šilas']] = ∃e∃d [low△(d)(the-intensity)(e) & d >C

min(Slow△)

Note also that in both the adjectival and the verbal domains, čut' p entails p. For instance, (16)

entails (17); the truth conditions of the two sentences are provided in (16') and (17'), respectively.

Roughly, if the intensity becomes slightly lower, then it holds that the intensity becomes lower.

(17) Intensivnost' umen'šilas'.

intensity lowered

(17') ƎeƎd [low△(d)(the-intensity)(e)]

We can thus see that the properties of čut' contribute evidence in favor of extending scalar

semantics to the verbal domain.

11

4 Temporal čut'

4.1 Data and Intuitions

Let us now turn to the temporal-aspectual use of čut'. It should be emphasized that this use is not

productive in modern spoken Russian; it is found primarily in literary texts and poetry. In spoken

language, temporal čut' is likely to be substituted by the word tol'ko, literally 'only'. Still, this use

is present in the language and native speakers understand this type of čut' and have intuitions

regarding its appropriateness. It is therefore worth asking whether and how temporal čut' is

related to the phonologically identical item that is found in the adjectival and the verbal domains.

Temporal čut' is illustrated in the examples from National Corpus of Russian in (18):

(18) a. ...čut' otkrylis' granicy, byvšie sovetskie ljudi zabyli pro bratskie Zolotye Peski...

čut' opened borders former Soviet people forgot about fraternal Golden Sands

'As soon as the borders were opened, former Soviet people forgot about the

fraternal Golden Sands.'

b. čut' on ušel - pis'mo ot Iriny Nikolaevny...

čut' he left letter from Irina Nikolaevna

'As soon as he left, a letter from Irina Nikolaevna [arrived].'

c. No čut' Ljusja popytalas' vernut'sja k rabote, muž kategoričeski vosprotivilsja.

but čut' Ljusja tried return to work husband emphatically objected

'But as soon as Ljusja tried to get back to work, her husband expressed his strong

dissent.'

Under the temporal use, čut' appears to the left of the subject. The interpretation of čut' p

intuitively seems to be close to that of 'as soon as p'.

For the sake of illustration, let us concentrate on the example in (19), a slightly modified version

of (18b).

(19) čut' Alex ušel, (kak) prišlo pis'mo ot Iriny Nikolaevny.

čut' Alex left as arrived letter from Irina Nikolaevna

'As soon as Alex left, a letter from Irina Nikolaevna arrived.'

The role of čut' is to contribute a relation of temporal ordering between the two events: the

arrival of the letter and Alex leaving. The former is entailed to take place immediately or almost

immediately after the latter. The contribution of čut' can be divided into two parts: (i) Alex'

departure temporally precedes the arrival of the letter, and (ii) the temporal traces of the two

events are very close. None of these meaning components is entailed by the corresponding

sentence without čut':

(20) Alex ušel, prišlo pis'mo ot Iriny Nikolaevny.

Alex left arrived letter from Irina Nikolaevna

'Alex left, a letter from Irina Nikolaevna arrived.'

12

(20) does not provide any information as to how much time passes between Alex leaving and the

letter arriving. The second clause is equally compatible with a temporal adverbial specifying that

the interval was very short (tut že 'immediately') and one that specifies that the interval was very

long (čerez god 'in a year'). In contrast, (19) is compatible with the former but not with the latter:

(21) a. Alex ušel, tut že / čerez god prišlo pis'mo ot Iriny Nikolaevny.

Alex left immediately through year arrived letter from Irina Nikolaevna

'Alex left, and immediately / in a year a letter from Irina Nikolaevna arrived.'

b. čut' Alex ušel, (kak) tut že / #čerez god prišlo pis'mo

čut' Alex left as immediately through year arrived letter

ot Iriny Nikolaevny.

from Irina Nikolaevna

'As soon as Alex left, immediately / in a year a letter from Irina Nikolaevna

arrived.'

Regarding the order of the two events, (20) is not conclusive either. It does suggest that Alex left

before the letter arrived, but this is an implicature, rather than an entailment. It is typically the

case that the order in which events are listed in the narrative reflects the order in which they took

place in the world. But this implicature can be cancelled in the presence of linguistic material

specifying that the events took place in a difference order. For instance, if we add the phrase za

dva dnja do etogo 'two days before that' to the second clause in (20), the arrival of the letter is

understood to have taken place before Alex left. Crucially, the resulting sentence (22a) is

perfectly acceptable. In contrast, (19) cannot combine with the same phrase (22b):

(22) a. Alex ušel, za dva dnja do etogo prišlo pis'mo ot Iriny Nikolaevny.

Alex left behind two days till this arrived letter from Irina Nikolaevna

'Alex left, two days before that a letter from Irina Nikolaevna arrived.'

b. #čut' Alex ušel, (kak) za dva dnja do etogo prišlo pis'mo

čut' Alex left as behind two days till this arrived letter

ot Iriny Nikolaevny.

from Irina Nikolaevna

'#As soon as Alex left, two days before that a letter from Irina Nikolaevna

arrived.'

Thus, the two meaning components under discussion (temporal precedence and temporal

proximity) are contributed to the truth conditions of (19) specifically by čut'.

Crucially, it is easy to see that these components are very close to the meaning contributed by the

other uses of čut'. A certain degree (this time one on a time scale) is asserted to be higher than

and close to another degree (presumably the standard of evaluation). This suggests that we deal

with the same item applied to a different syntactic and semantic domain. But in order to compare

temporal čut' to the other uses, we need to consider the compositional contribution of the former

in some detail.

13

4.2 Temporal čut' and Reference Time

How do we formalize the semantic contribution of temporal čut'? Let us concentrate on the

meaning component of temporal precedence. čut' specifies that the event that falls under the

denotation of the VP in its clause is followed by another event. (As a rule, temporal čut' appears

in a past tense clause, and both events are understood to precede the time of speech).

Thus, čut' makes sure that the temporal trace of the event is ordered not only relative to the time

of speech but also relative to the time of an additional eventuality.

In this respect, the contribution of čut' is in part similar to the function of past perfect in English.

The past perfect form indicates that the event in question does not only precede speech time but

also precedes the time of another past eventuality (or at least another temporal interval in the past

that is somehow made salient). For instance, in (23), past perfect makes sure that John left before

Mary's arrival.

(23) Mary arrived when John had left.

Since Reichenbach's (1947) influential work, this kind of temporal ordering is captured using the

notion of reference time (or topic time). This is the temporal interval relative to which the event

time is viewed or evaluated. Thus, in (23), the time of John's departure is evaluated relative to

another salient temporal interval, in particular, the time of Mary's arrival. The relative

configuration of event time (E), reference time (R) and speech time (S) depends on the tense and

aspect of the clause. Most relevantly for our discussion, past perfect is characterized by the

following configuration: E_R_S. Event time precedes reference time, and both precede speech

time. A detailed review of linguistic analyses of tense and aspect that are based on these notions

can be found in Borik (2002).

As noted above, čut' is partly similar to past perfect in that it, too, establishes a relation between

event time and another salient temporal interval, one relative to which event time is evaluated.

We therefore propose that čut' establishes a relation between event time and reference time. (The

latter overlaps with the event time of the second clause.) It specifies that reference time follows

event time (E_R), and also that the two intervals are close on the time scale.

One potential problem with this approach has to do with the claim that in Russian, perfective

aspect corresponds to the configuration whereby event time is included in reference time, [R E]

(Borik 2002). In turn, čut' clauses contain precisely perfective verbs. We believe, however, that

perfective aspect is compatible with different E-R configurations, which definitely do include the

E_R order.

This configuration is characteristic of perfect aspect in English (cf. Reichenbach 1947), and the

semantics of certain perfect constructions is indeed obtained in Russian with the use of perfective

aspect. For instance, in (24), the verb ušla 'left' is perfective. Here, the time of Lena's departure is

located relative to the time of another past event (Vasja's arrival), and we get the configuration

14

E_R_S. We conclude that perfective aspect is compatible with event time preceding reference

time.

(24) Vasja prišel, kodga Lena uže ušla.

Vasja came when Lena already leftPERF

'Vasja arrived when Lena had already left.'

4.3 Formalizing the Relation between čut' and Reference Time

Let us begin with the intuition behind the formal analysis that is developed in this section. The

attachment of čut' to a clause signals that the time of the event reported in the clause (e.g. Alex

leaving) is evaluated relative to the time of another event, which takes place immediately after

the first one. Assuming that the latter temporal interval constitutes the reference time, čut'

specifies that this reference time is located - on a time scale - higher than, but at the same time

close to, the time of the reported event. The event time (the time of Alex leaving) is a salient

degree on a time scale, which is independently contributed by the sentence, since events always

take place in time and, thus, come together with their temporal traces. Reference time, which

constitutes a degree on the time scale as well, is entailed to be located above this value but close

to it.

We now turn to the formal, compositional semantics of čut'-clauses. We will largely follow the

approach to the temporal-aspectual structure at the syntax-semantics interface developed by

Ramchand (2004), although we will not follow her analysis of perfectivity. Ramchand takes the

Asp(ect) Phrase area as the location where reference time is introduced to the semantics of a

clause and a relation is imposed between reference time and event time. In turn, the TP domain is

responsible for determining the relation between reference time and the time of speech. It is

AspP that is of interest for our current purposes.

(25) [[Asp]] = λPλt.∃e[P(e) & t ∈ τ(e)]

The Aspect head introduces a temporal argument (which corresponds to reference time) to the

semantics of the clause and further specifies that reference time is included in event time.

As discussed above, we assume that alternative relations between R and E are possible.

Specifically in čut'-clauses, E precedes R. This leaves open two options. We can assume that

perfective Asp leaves the relation between E and R undetermined (since perfectivity is

compatible with more than one such relation), and it is fixed at a later point. Alternatively,

assuming that the relation between R and E is systematically determined at the level of Asp, this

could be the place where the configuration E_R is established. Perfectivity per se does not

require this particular configuration but is compatible with Asp that specifies this relation. For

the purposes of presentation we will choose the second alternative; however, nothing crucial

hinges on this choice, as will become clear below.

Yet another point where the semantics we assume for Asp differs from (25) has to do with

quantification over events. We assume that Asp head does not contribute an existential operator

15

that binds the event argument; rather, the latter gets bound via an independent mechanism like

existential closure.

Let us now consider the compositional semantics of the clause čut' Alex ušel. We begin with the

semantics of the AspP:

(26) a. [[vP]] = λe. [left(alex)(e)]

b. [[Asp]] = λPλtλe. [P(e) & t > τ(e)]

c. [[AspP]] = [[Asp]]([[vP]]) = λtλe. [left(alex)(e) & t > τ(e)]

The vP denotes a set of leaving events whose agent is Alex. The Aspect head introduces the

'higher than' relation between reference time t and event time, represented here as the temporal

trace of e, τ(e). The semantics of AspP is derived by applying the semantics of Asp to the verbal

predicate. We are looking for a time and an event argument, and the output constitutes a

proposition according to which Alex left, and the time of this event precedes the temporal

argument (which, in turn, corresponds to the reference time.)

Further, we propose the following semantics for temporal čut':

(27) [[čut']] = λPλe. ∃d [P(d)(e) & d >C ds]

The item keeps functioning as a degree expression: it applies to a property that has a degree

argument and imposes the '>C' relation between this degree and a standard of comparison. The

latter is provided either by the linguistic environment or by the discourse.

It may seem that čut' cannot successfully apply to AspP due to type mismatch: the AspP does not

involve a degree argument. However, we should remember that temporal intervals constitute

degrees on time scales; thus, the denotation of AspP does contain a certain type of degree

argument.

For the sake of uniformity, and since temporal čut' applies specifically to scales with the

temporal dimension, we can substitute the degree variable d in the semantics of čut' by the

variable over temporal intervals t. But in order to keep the semantic representation of temporal

čut' as close as possible to the semantics of its other uses, we will instead substitute t by d in the

denotation of AspP (with the implicit assumption that the degrees involved in its semantics are

specifically on a time scale). We get the following:

(28) [[AspP]] = λdλe. [left(alex)(e) & d > τ(e)]

Temporal čut' (unlike the other uses of this item) applies to AspP. The result is represented in

(29a). The standard of comparison is a degree on a time scale, and such a standard is

linguistically contributed by AspP. This is the temporal interval of the event, represented above

as τ(e). We get (29b). Finally, since d >C τ(e) entails that d > τ(e), the representation of the

denotation of čut' AspP is reducible to (29c).

(29) a. [[čut']]([[AspP]]) = λe.∃d [left(Alex)(e) & d > τ(e) & d >C ds]

16

b. [[čut' AspP]] = λe.∃d [left(Alex)(e) & d > τ(e) & d >C τ(e)]

c. [[čut' AspP]] = λe.∃d [left(Alex)(e) & d >C τ(e)]

The resulting meaning after čut' applies to AspP is that the reference time appears slightly higher

on the time scale (i.e. comes slightly later) than the time of the event of Alex leaving.

5. Negative čut'

5.1 Descriptive Facts While the adjectival and verbal uses of čut' are largely similar even on the superficial level, the

negative čut' looks considerably different. By 'negative čut'' we refer to those instances where

čut' immediately precedes the sentential negation marker ne.

(30) Tom čut' ne upal.

Tom čut' neg fell

'Tom almost fell (down).'

As can be seen from the translation, the contribution of čut' in such sentences is very close to that

of almost. A substantial difference though has to do with the fact that, in order for the same

meaning to be obtained, čut' combines with a negated VP, whereas almost, with a non-negated

one. Roughly, John almost fell is semantically equivalent to John čut' didn't fall.

Unlike adjectival, verbal and temporal čut', its negative version does not seem to apply to an

expression that has a degree argument to begin with. While adjectives like bent or taller than

Mary clearly have scalar semantics, the scalarity of the constituents fell and didn't fall is at least

not obvious. Many VPs do not seem to lexicalize a scale on which the notion of proximity to a

standard could be represented. If so, then maybe we should analyze negative čut' as an item that

is merely homonymous with the degree modifier discussed in the previous sections? There are

several reasons to reject this direction.

Firstly, note that negative čut' is similar to its AP, VP and AspP counterparts in that it, too,

introduces the notion of proximity. For instance, (30) entails that Tom did not fall but was very

close to falling (whatever this notion of closeness means). Quite similarly, asserting that x is čut'

izognut 'slightly bent' means that x is bent but quite close to not being bent (but rather to being

straight). Secondly, with all types of čut', the same entailment pattern holds between a sentence

of the form čut' p (where čut' applies to some element inside the proposition) and p: the former

entails the latter. Thus, (30) entails (31):

(31) Tom ne upal.

Tom neg fell

'Tom didn't fall (down).'

17

In addition, čut' is not the only item with scalar semantics that applies to verb phrases that are not

intuitively scalar (let us assume for the present purposes, following Bailyn 1997, that NegP is a

kind of extended VP). The same has been demonstrated for almost and its counterparts in other

languages (cf. e.g. Nouwen 2006, Greenberg and Ronen 2013). Thus, almost seems to be scalar

in nature and has been assigned a scalar analysis (cf. e.g. Nowen 2006, Amaral and del Prete

2010, and references therein). Still, it combines with such not obviously scalar VPs as (almost)

fell and (almost) uttered the word. It has been argued that even with such intuitively non-scalar

expressions, the notion of proximal alternatives can be applied. For instance, Amaral and del

Prete (2010) consider the Italian example in (32):

(32) L’uomo quasi attraversò il confine.

‘The man almost crossed the border.’

For the purposes of the current discussion, we can concentrate on the English translation. The

predicate cross the border is likely to be analyzed as an achievement predicate which, consequently,

does not denote a sequence of stages that could be ordered along a scale. Still, Amaral and del Prete

propose, a relevant scale, although not lexicalized, is contextually provided. The sentence “could be

felicitously uttered only in a context in which it had already been established that the relevant man

entered some stepwise process (decisional and/or of physical actions) which, if completely run

through, would have led to the achievement of crossing the border.” Thus, we do deal with an

eventuality that develops along some scale (plausibly a path scale), and the subject is entailed to

reach a point on this scale that is close to (and lower than) the degree specified by the predicate.

Given that negative čut' carries a proximity meaning component, it seems at least plausible that it

can be assigned a scalar meaning. But if so, what kind of scale is involved? Intuitively and pre-

theoretically speaking, we are ordering situations in accordance with the likelihood of an event e

to take place. To illustrate, (30) deals with an event of Tom falling. If such an event takes place,

this makes it 100% likely. But if it does not take place, different options are available. Suppose

that Tom stumbles and actually starts falling, but at the last moment succeeds to grip hold of

something and remains on his feet. This means that at a certain temporal interval preceding the

event time, the event of falling comes very close to taking place. Alternatively, suppose that Tom

walks in a certain direction and there is a stone on his way. Here, the likelihood of falling is

somewhat lower: it is possible that Tom will fall, but it is also quite possible that he will notice

the stone in advance. Finally, imagine that there are absolutely no preconditions that are expected

to create a falling situation. Then the falling event is even less likely to begin with.

Then what kind of scale is involved, how is it introduced, and in what way is the contribution of

negative čut’ related to the semantics of čut’ under its other uses? In order to answer these

questions, let us firstly consider the semantics of counterfactual almost-sentences (such as 30

above and its English translation.) The analysis of such sentences we assume is based in Kagan

and Wolf (2015) (in preparation.) We will then turn to the contribution that is made specifically

by čut’ and the negative particle.

18

5.2 Counterfactual Almost

The counterfactual use of almost is widely recognized and discussed inter alia in Dowty 1979,

Rapp and von Stechow 1999, Sadock 1981, Sevi 1998 and Horn 2002. This use makes available

a reading in which the prejacent of almost, in some intuitive sense, comes close to occurring but,

in the end, fails to occur. For example:

(33) I almost told her that I love her.

The salient reading of (33) is that the speaker was on the verge of performing an act (of

professing love) but ultimately refrained from doing so, i.e. the prejacent did not even begin.

This is opposed to the more commonplace use of almost in which a relevant eventuality does

occur but fails to fall within the denotation of the predicate by virtue of being associated with too

low a degree:

(34) I almost reached the other side of the house when she told me she loved me.

Here, the speaker was in the progress of moving toward the other side of the house, i.e. a motion

event did take place, but the subject failed to reach the upper boundary of the path.

Interestingly, it is this counterfactual aspect of almost that čut’ neg sentences manifest. Kagan &

Wolf (2015) (in preparation) discuss this property, especially in contrast with another Russian

lexical item počti, which also means almost:

(35) a. - Uhodi! – počti prokričal on.

leave počti shouted he

''Go away!' he almost shouted.'

b. - Uhodi! – čut' ne prokričal on.

leave čut' neg shouted he

''Go away!' he almost shouted.'

0 asserts that the subject uttered the word Leave loudly; this act of sound emission was close to a

shout given its volume. In contrast, 0 means that the subject was about to shout, but ultimately

kept silent. Thus, 0 receives a scalar reading. On the scale of loudness, there is a degree starting

from which an utterance is considered a shout. The loudness of the subject’s statement was

slightly lower than this degree. In contrast, 0 gets a counterfactual reading: the subject was close

to shouting but in the end, the event did not take place at all.

19

On the basis of the facts discussed above, Kagan & Wolf (2015) (in preparation) make the

following generalization regarding the semantics of negative čut’:

čut' systematically renders the so-called counterfactual readings. Its acceptability is

independent from the presence of a scale associated with the VP. čut'- sentences assert

that the event in question did not take place but, in some intuitive sense, the situation was

close to such an event being instantiated. In other words, the probability of the event

taking place was very high at some point. The event was very likely to occur.

The formal analysis of counterfactual almost, proposed by Kagan and Wolf (2015), is based on

the scale of likelihood, i.e. probability. Specifically, this is the type of probability that relates to

the propensity (cf. Popper 1959) of the event depicted by the prejacent. This is a property that

describes the potential of the event to occur. This potential is measured on a scale of real

numbers ranging from 0 to 1 (a probability scale, corresponding to the standard properties of

probability) when 0 means that the event has no potential to occur, i.e. an impossibility, and 1

means that the event has a full potential to occur, i.e. a certainty. The formal representation is:

(36) λp <s,t> . λd. [PR(d)(p)] where PR is the probability function which takes a propositional and a degree argument (p

and d) and links p to the probability value d.

Recall that almost p sentences systematically specify that p is false. An assertion of an objective

likelihood which is slightly lower than certainty coupled with objective falsehood results, of

course, in a contradiction. The speaker cannot assert that there is a very high potential for an

event to occur if this event is false, since in that case, there is no possibility for it to occur (and it

is expected to be mapped to the 0 value on the probability scale.) Therefore, a pragmatic

reinterpretation takesplace, in which the only possible reading for counterfactual almost is the

probability of the prejacent prior to the event, at the time when its (non-) instantiation was not

yet objectively determined in the world. In other words, a sentence with counterfactual almost

implies that the prejacent is false but at the same time links it to a very high (almost maximal)

degree on the probability scale. The only way to interpret this as non-contradictory is by

concluding that the high probability characterizes the prejacent at an earlier time, before the non-

instantiation of the event was actually determined. Thus, the event had a high potential to occur

prior to the time of its potential instantiation, but did not take place in the end.

To illustrate, the sentence John almost fell asserts that John did not fall and further specifies that

the event of John falling had a very high (close to 1) potential of occurring at some point in the

past.

5.3 Negative čut’ and the Probability Scale

We propose that negative čut’, too, applies to a probability scale, whose values range from 0 to

1. However, recall that čut’, unlike almost, combines with a negative clause. Roughly, it holds

that counterfactual almost p = čut’∼p.

20

In turn, negation is an operator that reverses the truth value. In our case, this means that it

reverses the scale. Certainty (necessity) of p (i.e. the value 1) corresponds to impossibility of ∼p

(value 0). And impossibility of p corresponds to certainty of ∼p. The case is analogous with

intermediate values, e.g. high likelihood of p corresponds to low likelihood of ∼p. This is

schematically represented in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1. The scale to which almost applies Figure 2. The scale to which čut’ applies

• 1 p is true • 1 ∼p is true (p is false)

⦁ almost p

⦁ čut’ ∼p ⦁ 0 p is false ⦁ 0 ∼p is false (p is true)

Čut’ applies to the scale of probability represented in Figure 2 and makes its normal contribution,

found under all the other uses. It selects a degree that is slightly above the standard, which is in

this case the minimal point on the scale (the 0 value). (For reasons why it cannot use the

maximal value as the standard, see the discussion of adjectival čut’ and its unacceptability with

upper-closed scale adjectives. Roughly speaking, it is impossible to exceed the maximal value.)

The result is the entailment that the probability of ∼p is slightly higher than 0. This means that

the probability of p is, on the opposite, very high (slightly lower than 1). That is precisely the

meaning that counterfactual almost sentences have.

To illustrate, in (30), repeated below, p corresponds to the proposition Tom fell. But while almost

(in the English translation) combines with this proposition, čut’ applies to its negation, Tom

didn’t fall. As a result, we deal with a scale representing the likelihood of the negative

proposition being true. The zero value corresponds to 0-potential of Tom didn’t fall, the

prejacent, to be true. This means the maximal, 1, potential of the proposition Tom fell to be true.

(In other words, the 0 value on the scale associated with negative čut’ corresponds to the 1 value

on the scale associated with counterfactual almost.) In turn, the highest value on the scale to

which čut’ applies corresponds to a certainty of the proposition Tom didn’t fall to be true. This

means certainty that the sentence Tom fell is false. Thus, the value 1 on the scale to which čut’

applies corresponds to the value 0 on the scale of almost. Hence proximity to 0 on the scale of

čut’ is equivalent to proximity to 1 on the scale of almost.

(30) Tom čut' ne upal.

Tom čut' neg fell

'Tom almost fell (down).'

Note further that čut’ p always entails p. This holds with negative čut’, just like with all the other

types. Thus, čut’ ∼p entails ∼p. What we get is the combination of two assertions: p is false and

the probability of p is very high (slightly lower than 1). (The latter holds because, as specified by

čut’, the probability of ∼p is very low, slightly higher than 0.)

Just as discussed above for almost, these two facts can only be reconciled if the probability of p

is evaluated relative to a temporal interval that precedes the time of the potential event. As a

21

result, we end up with the following meaning: p is false but it was likely to become true at a

certain temporal interval preceding event time.

For instance, (30), entails that Tom did not fall but the falling event was characterized by a very

high likelihood of occurring (the past tense interpretation of the meaning component being

pragmatically induced.)

The compositional analysis of (30) is provided in (37) below:

(37) a. [[upal]] = λxλe. fell(x)(e)

[[ne upal]] = λxλe. ∼fell(x)(e)

b. [[Tom ne upal]] = λe.∼fell(tom)(e)

c. The probability operator is inserted:

λp <s,t> . λd. [PR(d)(p)]

d. [[prob Tom ne upal]] = λdλe. [PR(d)(∼fell(tom)(e))]

e. [[čut’]] = λPλe. Ǝd[P(d)(e) & d >C ds]

f. [[čut’ prob Tom ne upal]] = λe. Ǝd [PR(d)(∼fell(tom)(e)) & d >C ds]

g. ds = min(Sprobability) = 0

h. [[S]] = λe. Ǝd [PR(d)(∼fell(tom)(e)) & d >C 0]

i. The event variable is bound by existential closure:

ƎeƎd [probability(d)(∼fell(tom)(e)) & d >C ds]

The fact that negative čut’ and almost render identical meanings results from a double reversal.

In a certain sense, čut’ can be conceptualized as a mirror image of almost. While almost selects a

degree that is slightly lower than the maximum, čut’ points at a degree that is slightly higher than

the minimum. As a result, almost combines with upper-closed adjectives and čut’, with lower-

closed ones. The two items are thus not expected to render identical truth conditions. However,

in addition to this contrast, counterfactual almost applies to an affirmative clause, and negative

čut’, to a negative one. The product of this double reversal is semantic identity, as illustrated in

Figures 1 and 2 above. ‘Slightly lower than certainty for p’ is equivalent to ‘Slightly higher than

impossibility for not p’.6

6 A question emerges as to why the propositional use of čut' is restricted to negative clauses. We would expect this

item to also apply to positive clauses, thereby creating the following meaning: the situation was such that the event

denoted by the clause was very likely not to take place, but ultimately, it was instantiated. Such a use is not available

to čut'. However, exactly this kind of meaning is created in the presence of other items: ele and edva, both of which

can be translated as 'hardly' and 'barely'. (See Sevi 1998 for an analysis of barely.) It is important to point out that

the contribution of these items is partially similar to that of čut' under some of its uses. For instance, edva can be

used in negative clauses with the same meaning as čut' (although čut' sounds more natural in modern spoken

Russian). Also, both edva and ele make the same contribution as čut' in combination with deverbal minimum

standard adjectives, such as slyšnyj 'audible'. Therefore, I believe that the propositional use of čut' with affirmative

clauses is not ruled out due to inherent semantic incompatibility. Rather, we deal with a division of labor between

several items with overlapping roles. Edva and ele are reserved for affirmative clauses, whereas in negative clauses,

čut' is highly preferable (edva is possible mainly in high style and ele, unacceptable).

22

6. Conclusion and Future Research To sum up, in this paper, we have proposed that čut' is a degree modifier that can apply at

different levels, including AP, VP, AspP and NegP. čut' p sentences with adjectival, verbal,

temporal and negative čut' entail that p is true and that the degree to which some argument

associated with the proposition is mapped is higher than and very close to an independently

contributed standard. The relevant scale is the one induced by the constituent to which čut'

applies. The distributional and semantic variation associated with čut' points to the fact that

linguistic relevance of scale structure holds in a wide range of domains.

References Amaral, Patrícia and Fabio Del Prete. 2010. Approximating the limit: the interaction between

quasi ‘almost’ and some temporal connectives in Italian. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33(2),

51-115.

Bailyn, John F. 1997. Genitive of Negation is Obligatory. In: W. Browne, E. Dornisch, N.

Kondrashova and D. Zec, eds., Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic

Linguistics: The Cornell Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.

Beavers, John. (2007). “Scalar complexity and the structure of events". In Event Structures in

Linguistic Form and Interpretation, Johannes Dölling and Tatjana Heyde-Zybatow

(eds.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Beavers, John. (2012). "Lexical aspect and multiple incremental themes". In Telicity, Change,

and State: A Cross-Categorial View of Event Structure, ed. Violeta Demonte and Louise

McNally, 23–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Borik, Olga. 2002. Aspect and Reference Time. Doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht.

Bylinina, Lisa. 2012. Functional standards and the absolute / relative distinction. In Ana Aguilar

Guevara, Anna Chernilovskaya & Rick Nouwen (eds.), Sinn und Bedeutung (SuB) 16, 141–

157.

Caudal, Patrick and David Nicolas. 2005. Types of degrees and types of event structures. In

C. Maienborn and A. Wöllstein (eds.), Event Arguments: Foundations and Applications.

Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 277-300.

Dowty, D. R. 1979. Word and Meaning in Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel

Publishing Company.

Filip, Hana. 2008. Events and Maximalization. In Theoretical and Crosslinguistic

Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect, ed. Susan Rothstein. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,

pp. 217-256.

Filip, Hana and Susan Rothstein. 2006. Telicity as a Semantic Parameter. In Formal

Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL 14). The Princeton University Meeting, edited by

James Lavine, Steven Franks, Hana Filip and Mila Tasseva-Kurktchieva. Ann Arbor, MI:

University of Michigan Slavic Publications. pp.139-156.

Greenberg, Yael. 2010. Additivity in the Domain of Eventualities. In Martin Prinzhorn,

Viola Schmitt and Sarah Zobel (eds.): Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14, Vienna, pp.

151 – 167.

Greenberg, Yael and Moria Ronen. 2013. Three approximators which are almost / more or less /

23

be-gadol the same. In Proceedings of IATL 28.

Hay, Jen, Christopher Kennedy, and Beth Levin. 1999. Scale structure underlies telicity in

‘degree achievements’. In: Semantics and Linguistic Theory 9, Tanya Matthews and Devon

Strolovitch, eds., 127–144. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

Heim, Irene. 2000. Degree Operators and Scope. In Proceedings of SALT 10, 40-64. Ithaca:

CLC Publications.

Horn, Laurence R. 2002. Assertoric Inertia and NPI-licensing. In: Chicago Linguistic Society 38,

55-82.

Kagan, Olga. to appear. Scalarity in the Verbal Domain: The Case of Verbal Prefixation in

Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kagan, Olga and Sascha Alexeyenko. 2011a. Degree Modification in Russian Morphology: The

Case of the Suffix -ovat. In Proceedings of IATL 26.

Kagan, Olga and Sascha Alexeyenko. 2011b. The Adjectival Suffix –ovat as a Degree Modifier

in Russian. In I. Reich et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15, pp. 321-335.

Saarbrücken: Universaar.

Kagan, Olga and Lavi Wolf. 2015. Gradability versus Counterfactuality: Almost in English and

Russian. In: Nurit Melnik, ed., Proceedings of IATL 30.

Kagan, Olga and Lavi Wolf. in preparation. A Scalar Analysis of Counterfactual Almost. Ms.,

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

Kearns, Kate. 2007. Telic senses of deadjectival verbs. Lingua 117:26–66.

Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability

and comparison. New York: Garland Press.

Kennedy, Christopher. 2007. Vagueness and grammar: the semantics of relative and absolute

gradable predicates. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 1-45.

Kennedy, Christopher and Beth. Levin. 2002. Telicity Corresponds to Degree of Change.

Unpublished ms., Northwestern University and Stanford University.

Kennedy, Christopher and Beth Levin. 2008. Measure of Change: The Adjectival Core of Degree

Achievements. In McNally, L. and C. Kennedy, eds., Adjectives and Adverbs: Syntax,

Semantics and Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kennedy, Christopher and Louise McNally. 2005a. Scale Structure, Degree Modification, and

the Semantics of Gradable Predicates. Language 81(2): 345-381.

McNally, Louise. 2011. The relative role of property type and scale structure in explaining the

behavior of gradable adjectives. In R. Nouwen, R. van Rooij, U. Sauerland and H.C. Schmitz

(eds.), Vagueness in Communication, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Folli, Springer,

Heidelberg, 151-168.

Morzycki, Marcin. 2001. Almost and Its Kin, Across Categories. In Proceedings from

Semantics and Linguistic Theory, XI, 306-325. Ithaca: CLC Publications.

Penka, Doris. 2005. Almost: a test? In Proceedings of the fifteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, ed.

by Paul Dekker and Michael Franke, 179-184. Amsterdam: ILLC.

Piñón, Christopher. 2008. Aspectual composition with degrees. In Louise McNally and

Christopher Kennedy (eds.), Adjectives and Adverbs: Syntax, Semantics, and Discourse,

pp. 183–219. Oxford University Press.

Popper, Karl. 1959. The propensity interpretation of probability." British Journal for the

Philosophy of Science (pp 25-42).

Qtit, Mostafa. 2014. Diminutives in Arabic. M.A. Thesis, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

Ramchand, G. (2004). “Time and the event: The semantics of Russian prefixes”. In Peter

24

Svenonius, ed., Nordlyd 32.2. Special issue on Slavic prefixes, 323-361. CASTL: Tromsø.

Rapp, Irene and Arnim von Stechow. 1999. Fast ‘almost’ and the visibility parameter for

functional adverbs. Journal of Semantics 16:149-204.

Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2008. Lexicalized Meaning and the Internal Structure of Events.

In Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect, S. Rothstein., ed.,

John Benjamins: Amsterdam.

Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2011. Lexicalzed Scales and Scalar Change in Two Domains. Paper

presented at the workshop “Scalarity in Verb-Based Constructions”, Dusseldorf, April 2011.

Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2013. Building Scalar Changes. In A. Alexiadou, H. Borer and

F. Schaeffer, eds., Roots. Oxford University Press.

Reichenbach, Hans 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Macmillan & Co.

Rett, Jessica. 2008. Degree modification in Natural language. Doctoral dissertation. Rutgers,

The State University of New Jersey.

Rothstein, Susan. 2008. Two Puzzles for a Theory of Lexical Aspect: The Case of

Semelfactives and Degree Adverbials. In Event Structures in Linguistic Form and

Interpretation, eds. J. Dölling, T. Heyde-Zybatowand M. Shaefer. Mouton De Gruyter:

Berlin.

Rotstein, Carmen and Yoad Winter 2004. Total adjectives vs. partial adjectives: Scale structure

and higher-order modifiers. Natural Language Semantics 12, 259-288.

Sadock, Jerrold. 1981. Almost. Radical Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 257–271. New York:

Academic Press.

Sassoon, Galit Weidman and Robert van Rooij. 2012. The semantics of for phrases and its

implications. Ms. ILLC, Amsterdam University and Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Sassoon, Galit Weidman and Natalia Zevakhina. 2012. Granularity shifting: Experimental

evidence from degree modifiers. In Proceedings of SALT 22.

Sevi, Aldo. 1998. A Semantics for Almost and Barely. M.A. thesis, Tel-Aviv University.

Toledo, Assaf & Galit Weidman Sassoon. 2011. Absolute vs. Relative Adjectives - Variance

Within vs. Between Individuals. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic theory (SALT) 21.

Rutgers University. New Jersey. MIT working Papers in Linguistics.