Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 105--121

www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

The pragmatics of number: The evaluative properties

of vivir + V[Gerund]
Patrícia Amaral *
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Romance Languages, 320 Dey Hall,
CB 3170, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
Received 28 November 2012; received in revised form 25 February 2013; accepted 8 March 2013

Abstract
Several languages have grammaticalized means of expressing event plurality in the verbal domain. While some languages use
affixation and reduplication to encode iterative and frequentative meanings, Spanish has periphrastic constructions formed by an
auxiliary verb and a non-finite verb form that encode this type of meaning. This paper focuses on a frequentative periphrasis found in the
Spanish of Bogotá, vivir + V[Gerund] ‘to keep V-ing’, and analyzes its evaluative properties. I propose that the properties of vivir + V
[Gerund] reflect a pragmatic principle associated more generally with expressions denoting high number. Both in the verbal and in the
nominal domain, forms that denote a large and uncountable number are often associated with evaluative meanings. These plural forms
do not depict a specific number of referents (events or entities). Rather, the expression of high number is used to signal a situation that
deviates from a normal or sufficient quantity. This is motivated by the pragmatic enrichment of morphologically marked expressions,
following Horn’s principle of ‘‘Division of Pragmatic Labor’’ (Horn, 1984). The findings have implications for the study of plurality cross-
linguistically as well as for neo-Gricean theories of interpretation.
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Plurality; Verbal periphrases; Evaluative meaning; Frequency; Spanish

1. Introduction

This paper focuses on the pragmatic properties associated with the expression of event repetition by verbal
constructions. In particular, I analyze a verbal construction found in certain American dialects of Spanish, e.g. Rioplatense
and Colombian Spanish (Bogotá),1 formed by the verb vivir ‘to live’ + V[Gerund] ‘to keep V-ing’, as in (1).2

* Tel.: +1 919 621 2010; fax: +1 919 962 5457.

E-mail address: pamaral@unc.edu.
1
According to the Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Españ ola, this periphrasis is restricted to colloquial speech and can be found in the following
Spanish-speaking areas: Mexico, Central America, Río de la Plata, the Andean region, and to a lesser extent in Chile and the Caribbean (Nueva
Gramática de la Lengua Españ ola 2009:2207). On her diachronic study of verbal periphrases in Spanish, Yllera (1979) presents vivir + V[Gerund]
as a relatively recent periphrasis that displays a low degree of semantic bleaching of the verb vivir (Yllera, 1979:53). However, the semantic tests
presented in section 2.2 point to an advanced degree of grammaticalization of this construction. Other authors, e.g. Otalóra de Fernández (1992),
following Alonso (1951), treat vivir + V[Gerund] as a grammaticalized periphrasis akin to andar + V[Gerund].
2
The abbreviations used in glosses are as follows: CL: clitic pronoun; PRES: present tense; IMPF: imperfective past tense; PERF: perfective past
tense; INF: infinitive; GER: Gerund; SG: singular; PL: plural; RED: reduplication; GEN: genitive case; DEF: definite; REFL: reflexive. The data analyzed in
this paper are naturally occurring examples from the Spanish of Bogotá, either found online or in published materials (e.g. newspapers).
Constructed examples are kept to a minimum.

0378-2166/$ -- see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.004
106 P. Amaral / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 105--121

(1) Al Pato Torres le viven diciendo que la radio es mía.

To.the Pato Torres CL live-PRES-3PL say-GER that the radio is mine
‘(People) keep telling Pato Torres that the radio is mine.’ [from: Nueva Gramática de la RAE 2009:2208]

In (1), the finite form of the verb vivir and the non-finite form of decir constitute a single (complex) predicate, forming a
monoclausal construction that denotes a frequent repetition of events of saying over an extended time period. As will be
shown below, the verb vivir has undergone semantic bleaching and contributes aspectual information, while the verb in
the Gerund functions as the main predicate.
This paper has two parts. First, I describe the syntactic and semantic properties of this construction, in order to show
that it is a complex predicate (Yllera, 1999; Otalóra de Fernández, 1992). Following the analysis of the verbal
constructions ir ‘to go’ + V[Gerund] ‘to V slowly and incrementally’ and andar ‘to walk’ + V[Gerund] ‘to V repeatedly’ in
Spanish proposed in Laca (2004, 2006), in section 2 I propose that vivir + V[Gerund] is a periphrasis conveying event
plurality, with frequentative meaning. In the remainder of the paper, I focus on the pragmatic properties of this
construction. It has been pointed out that
‘‘[Esta perífrasis] se usa para expresar una acción que se repite de manera habitual, constante o muy frecuente,
sobre todo si es valorada negativamente por el que habla’’ ‘[This periphrasis] is used to express an action repeated
in habitual, constant or very frequent manner, especially if it is negatively evaluated by the speaker.’ (my translation)
(Nueva Gramática de la RAE 2009:2207).
Starting from the interpretation of several naturally occurring examples in section 3, I propose that the evaluative meaning
associated with this periphrasis is not about the event3 denoted by the verb in the Gerund, as suggested in this excerpt,
but rather an evaluation of the frequency of that event. By using this construction, the speaker conveys the implication that
the event occurs more frequently than it should be the case (given the speaker’s expectations). Because of these
evaluative properties, the felicitous use of vivir + V[Gerund] is more constrained than the use of other expressions that
denote frequency of events, e.g. frequency adverbs. The periphrasis can only be felicitously used when the frequency of
an event contributes a characterizing property of an individual or an entity, and the frequency is evaluated by the speaker. I
propose that the evaluative properties of vivir + V[Gerund] reflect a pragmatic principle associated with the expression of
event frequency and more generally with expressions denoting high number. The restricted distribution of this
construction has parallels in the nominal domain, where forms that denote a large or excessive number are systematically
associated with evaluative meanings, as I show in section 4. These plural forms, both in the nominal and in the verbal
domain, do not depict a specific number of referents (where these may be entities or events). Rather, the expression of
high number is used to signal a situation that deviates from a normal or sufficient quantity (which is not necessarily singular
in absolute terms). This is motivated by the pragmatic enrichment of morphologically marked expressions, according to a
‘‘Division of Pragmatic Labor’’ (Horn, 1984), as argued in section 5. In the final section, I consider the consequences of this
proposal both for the study of plurality and for neo-Gricean theories of interpretation.

2. The periphrasis vivir + V[Gerund] as a complex predicate

In order to understand the properties of the periphrasis, it must first be distinguished from the sequence formed by vivir
as a main verb followed by a verb in the Gerund with an adverbial function, exemplified in (2). In the latter case, the two
verbs are two different predicates; the verb in the Gerund is a modifier of the finite verb and hence the sentence is
biclausal. For this reason, it is possible to paraphrase the sequence in boldface in (2) with two conjoined clauses, he lived
and he worked, as in (3):

(2) vivía en la finca trabajando con sus padres y hermanos en las labores agrícolas
live-IMPF-3SG in the farm work-GER with his parents and siblings in the labors agricultural
‘(he) lived in the farm working with his parents and siblings in agriculture’

(3) vivía en la finca y trabajaba con sus padres y hermanos en las labores agrícolas
live-IMPF-3SG in the farm and work-IMPF-3SG with his parents and siblings in the labors agricultural
‘(he) lived in the farm and worked with his parents and siblings in agriculture’

Since the aspectual periphrasis is a complex predicate, it differs from the biclausal sequence exemplified in (2)
both in syntactic and semantic terms. Complex predicates may have a range of different properties cross-linguistically

3
In this paper, I use the term event as a general term; strictly speaking, I mean ‘eventuality’ (Bach, 1986).
 P. Amaral / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 105--121 107

(see Alsina et al., 1997 for discussion). In this paper, I will adopt the criteria for the identification of complex predicates
proposed for the Romance languages by Abeillé and Godard (2010). A complex predicate is a series of verbs that behaves
like a single verb with respect to a set of syntactic and semantic properties. It is formed by a finite verb and a non-finite verb
form (a participle, an infinitive or a gerund). The finite verb is considered an auxiliary verb. The tests presented in the following
sections show that in the construction vivir + V[Gerund], the verb vivir is an auxiliary verb with an aspectual interpretation and
the main predicate is the verb in the Gerund.

2.1. Syntactic criteria

The following syntactic criteria for complex predicates have been proposed (mostly for the European varieties of the
Romance languages): clitic climbing, preposing of the Gerund and its complements, and acceptability of intervening
adverbs and other constituents between the two verb forms (Abeillé and Godard, 2010).4

2.1.1. Clitic climbing

Clitic climbing has been used as a criterion to identify a complex predicate in Spanish and French (Abeillé & Godard,
2010). A clitic pronoun may either form a prosodic constituent with the verb that subcategorizes for it or with the auxiliary
verb, which is the head of the verb phrase. In the aspectual periphrasis, the main predicate is the verb in the Gerund, and
any arguments will be subcategorized by this verb. In (4), the clitic se is subcategorized by the verb besar (in the Gerund);
the clitic pronoun may either form a prosodic constituent with this verb, as in (4a), or with vivir, as in (4b).

(4) a. Viven besándose.

live-PRES-3PL kiss-GER.CL
b. Se viven besando.
CL live-PRES-3PL kiss-GER
‘They kiss (each other) all the time.’

Example (1) above also illustrates clitic climbing. This test shows that the two verb forms in the construction form a
complex predicate; the verbs share the argument structure, which is inherited from the verb in the Gerund.

2.1.2. Preposing
This criterion is used as a general test for constituency and it correlates with the previous one (see Aissen and
Perlmutter, 1976/1983). In the case of complex predicates, the verb in the Gerund and the complement(s) it
subcategorizes for cannot be preposed (e.g. in a topicalization structure), as they form a single constituent with the finite
verb. Hence, (5b) is ruled out:

(5) a. les vivo llamando la atención a los niños

CL live-PRES-1SG call-GER the attention to the children
‘I have to remind the children all the time’ (example from Nueva Gramática de la RAE 2009:2207)
b. *llamando la atención a los niños, les vivo
call-GER the attention to the children, CL live-PRES-1SG

Another constituency test used to identify monoclausal periphrastic constructions is the impossibility of substituting the
gerund with an adverbial pro-form, as in (5c):
?
(5) c. * Cómo les vives a los niños?
how CL live-PRES-2SG to the children

On the other hand, it is both possible to prepose the verb in the Gerund (given the appropriate information structure
conditions) and to replace it by an adverbial pro-form when vivir is a main verb and the verb in the Gerund is a manner
modifier, i.e. a separate predicate.

4
Similar tests have been proposed specifically for aspectual periphrases formed with the Gerund in Spanish, all of which hold for vivir + V[Gerund]:
‘‘Para que exista una perífrasis de gerundio es pues necesario que: (a) el gerundio posea carácter verbal y no adverbial o adjetival, (b) coincida el
sujeto del gerundio con el sujeto del auxiliar y (c) no existan complementos que modifiquen exclusivamente al auxiliar’’. [In order to have a periphrasis
of gerund, it is required that: (a) the gerund behave like a verb, not like an adverb or an adjective, (b) the subject of the gerund and the auxiliary verbs
coincide, and (c) there are no constituents exclusively modifying the auxiliary verb’’, my translation] (Yllera, 1999:3393).
108 P. Amaral / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 105--121
?
(6) a. Cómo vivía en la finca?
how live-IMPF-3SG in the farm
‘How did [he/she] live in the farm?’
b. Trabajando con sus padres y hermanos, así es como vivía.
work-GER with his parents y siblings, so be-PRES-3SG how live-IMPF-3SG
‘Working with his/her parents and siblings, this is how (he/she) lived.’

2.1.3. Constituent interpolation

The insertion of other constituents between two verbs that form a complex predicate is generally ruled out, as can be
observed with the aspectual periphrasis. For this reason, examples (7) and (8), with the interpolated PPs en la ciudad
‘in the city’ and en Bogotá ‘in Bogotá’, are not acceptable.

(7) Al Pato Torres le viven *en la ciudad diciendo que la radio es mía.
To.the Pato Torres CL live-PRES-3PL in the city say-GER that the radio is mine

(8) Vive *en Bogotá lloviendo.

live-PRES-3SG in Bogotá rain-GER

The same test is used by Olbertz (1998) for ir + V[Gerund] and andar + V[Gerund]; the periphrastic constructions do not
allow for ‘‘a locative argument or a related satellite’’ (Olbertz, 1998:287) otherwise compatible with the motion verbs ir and
andar. However, this is possible in biclausal constructions, as seen in example (2) above, repeated here, in which each
predicate may be followed by its arguments or by modifiers (Yllera, 1999).

(2) Vivía en la finca trabajando con sus padres y hermanos en las labores agrícolas.
‘(He/she) lived in the farm working with his parents and siblings in agriculture’

In (2), vivir and trabajar are separate predicates, hence allowing for constituent interpolation.

2.1.4. Intervening adverbs

Spanish and Portuguese, unlike French and Italian, do only allow a restricted set of adverbs between the two verbs of a
complex predicate: these adverbs are casi ‘almost’, ya ‘already’, apenas ‘barely’, sólo ‘only’ (Zagona, 1988).5 In (9), the
degree adverb mucho cannot occur between the auxiliary verb and the verb in the Gerund, but the focus adverb sólo is
acceptable:

(9) Le vivían sólo/*mucho repitiendo que lo estaba haciendo mal.

CL live-IMPF-3PL only/*much repeat-GER that CL be-IMPF-3SG do-GER badly

The biclausal sequence, on the other hand, does not have this restriction, as the two verbs constitute two separate
predicates.

2.1.5. Coordination of the non-finite verbs with complements

For complex predicates, most of the Romance languages allow coordination of non-finite verbs with their respective
complements, although native speakers of Spanish vary as to the extent that they accept such structures (Abeillé and
Godard, 2010:138).

(10) Vive haciendo tonterías y mintiendo a todo el mundo.

live-PRES-3SG do-GER silly.things and lie-GER to all the world
‘(He/she) keeps doing silly things and lying to everybody.’

5
As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, there is both inter-speaker variation regarding the set of small adverbs accepted in this position and
variation determined by the finite verb in the verbal construction (see Abeillé and Godard, 2010:139; Zagona, 1988:149 for a detailed description).
The lack of corpora examples containing adverbs between the two verbs as well as native speakers’ judgments support the claim that intervening
material is restricted both for the periphrasis vivir + V[Gerund] and for the periphrases ir + V[Gerund] and andar + V[Gerund]. From the set of small
adverbs, casi seems to be more acceptable to native speakers than the other adverbs (e.g. Le andaba casi gritando).
 P. Amaral / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 105--121 109

Table 1
Summary of syntactic criteria distinguishing the aspectual periphrasis from the biclausal construction.

Syntactic tests Clitic Preposing Constituent Possibility Coordination of Argument structure

climbing interpolation of intervening non-finite verb forms
adverbs and respective
complements

Aspectual periphrasis Yes No No No (restricted Yes Inherited from

set of ‘‘small adverbs’’) non-finite verb
Biclausal sequence No Yes Yes Yes No Each predicate keeps
respective arguments

In (10), the head of the complex predicate (vive) takes scope over the coordination of the verbs in the Gerund and their
complements.
The criteria presented in this section, summarized in Table 1, show that in the aspectual construction the verb vivir and
the verb in the Gerund form a single predicate; the Gerund does not have an adverbial function as in the biclausal
construction. These criteria correlate with the semantic properties of the periphrasis: since the main predicate is the verb in
the Gerund, the argument structure and selectional restrictions of this verb are inherited by the whole construction.

2.2. Semantic criteria

A striking difference between the two constructions is that the biclausal sequence can be used to answer the question
‘‘How did [SUBJECT] live?’’ or ‘‘What did [SUBJECT] do during her/his life?’’, given the adverbial function of the Gerund clause.6
On the other hand, in the aspectual periphrasis, the property of living is not being predicated of the subject and the main
predication is contributed by the non-finite verb form. Accordingly, the selectional restrictions of the whole complex are
determined by the verb in the Gerund. The lexical meaning of vivir is bleached, as shown by the compatibility of the
aspectual periphrasis with verbs that are incompatible with its use as a main verb.

2.2.1. Animacy restriction on subjects

When vivir ‘to live’ is a main verb, it selects for animate subjects. This is not the case for the aspectual periphrasis, as
shown by the inanimate subject in (11) and by the possibility of having impersonal verbs in the Gerund, like verbs that
denote atmospheric conditions, as in (12) and (13):

(11) Mi carro vive dañándose.

‘My car keeps having problems.’

(12) Vive lloviendo en Bogotá.

‘It keeps raining in Bogotá’.

(13) Vive haciendo frío.

‘It’s cold all the time.’

The compatibility of vivir with these verbs shows that in the periphrasis the verb vivir has lost its selectional restrictions on
the subject and has become an auxiliary verb contributing aspectual meaning.
However, there are restrictions on the verbs that may occur in the Gerund as part of the complex predicate. These
restrictions are determined by the meaning of the periphrasis and pertain to the Aktionsart of the verb phrase (i.e. the verb
in the Gerund and its complements). Given that the periphrasis denotes a repetition of an event over an extended time

6
This is shown by the contrast in entailment patterns between (i) and (ii):

(i) Vivía en la finca trabajando en las labores agrícolas.

(He) lived in the farm working in agriculture’. During his life, he worked in agriculture.
(ii) Al Pato Torres le viven diciendo que la radio es mía.
‘(People) keep telling Pato Torres that it’s my radio’. During their lives, people tell Pato Torres that the radio is mine.

While (i) entails that the subject of the sentence lived in a particular way (or had a particular activity during his/her life), in (ii) the periphrastic
construction denotes a repetition of events of the type denoted by the verb in the Gerund.
110 P. Amaral / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 105--121

Table 2
Semantic criteria that differentiate the two constructions with vivir + V[Gerund].

Semantic tests Animacy of Restrictions on verbs in the gerund Compatible with

subject required perfective forms

Aspectual periphrasis No No (determined by the Aktionsart of the VP) No

Biclausal sequence Yes Yes (determined by the lexical meaning of vivir) Yes

interval, only verbs denoting repeatable events may occur in this construction. For this reason, sentence (14) is
anomalous:

(14) ?La bomba vive explotando.

the bomb live-PRES-3SG explode-GER

Assuming that the subject of the sentence denotes a specific and unique bomb, and that any given explosion may only
occur once, the meaning of the VP is incompatible with the frequentative meaning of the periphrasis, and the sentence is
semantically anomalous.

2.2.2. Aspectual restrictions

The periphrasis vivir + V[Gerund] is only compatible with imperfective verb forms (the Presente or the Imperfecto).
Hence, when the verb vivir occurs in a perfective form, the Gerund must be interpreted as a clausal modifier,
as in (15)7:

(15) Vivieron trabajando en la finca.

live-PERF-3PL work-GER in the farm
‘They lived (i.e. spent their lives) working in the farm.’

For this reason, example (13) above would be anomalous with the verb vivir in a perfective past form, as in (16):

(16) ? Vivió haciendo frío.

live-PERF-3SG do-GER cold

The semantic criteria that differentiate the two constructions are summarized in Table 2.
The tests presented in this section demonstrate that vivir + V[Gerund] forms a complex predicate rather than a sequence
of two predicates. The main predication is provided by the verb in the Gerund, as shown by the restrictions on the classes of
verbs that may occur in the non-finite form and by the lack of an animacy requirement on the subject of the periphrasis.

3. Verbal plurality

Although aspectual periphrases in Spanish and Portuguese have been associated with aspectual meaning, in
particular with progressive aspect (Dietrich, 1973; Espunya, 1998), Laca (2004, 2005) has made a compelling argument
about the need to distinguish two types of verbal periphrases in the Romance languages. She has argued that the
interpretation of the verbal constructions formed with verbs of motion, ir (lit., ‘to go’) + V[Gerund] ‘to do something
gradually and successively’ and andar (lit., ‘to walk’) + V[Gerund] ‘to do repeatedly’, can best be captured in terms of
eventuality modification rather than viewpoint aspect (see Laca, 2005, 2006 for discussion). According to Laca, while the
progressive periphrasis formed by estar + V[Gerund] expresses a relation between two time intervals (viewpoint aspect),
Romance periphrases like those formed with the motion verbs in Spanish and Portuguese alter the temporal structure of
the eventuality and hence belong to the domain of lexical or situation aspect. This proposal builds on Smith’s theoretical

7
As an anonymous reviewer points out, it is possible that as the verbal periphrasis further grammaticalizes, it will eventually become compatible
with perfective forms, as has been the case with other verbal periphrases in Spanish and Portuguese (Squartini, 1998). However, it should also be
noted that the expression of verbal plurality often interacts with aspect (see Wood, 2007:10). In Ibero-Romance, the distinction between
perfective/imperfective is relevant in the interpretation of verbal periphrases. For example, both in varieties of Spanish (e.g. Mexican Spanish,
Ecuador) and in European Portuguese the periphrasis formed by the verb ir + V[Gerund] may denote an unrealized imminent event if the verb ir
occurs in the imperfective past and denotes event plurality (gradual or incremental repetition) if the verb ir occurs in the present or in a perfective
form.
 P. Amaral / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 105--121 111

distinction between situation aspect and viewpoint aspect (Smith, 1991). Evidence for the existence of two types of
periphrases comes from the relative order and the constraints on the distribution of the periphrases (Laca, 2004).8
With respect to vivir + V[Gerund], a clear difference between this periphrasis and the progressive can be seen in (17),
in which vivir + V[Gerund] is ruled out in the main clause:

(17) Cuando Ana llegó a casa, Pepe estaba/*vivía mirando la tele.

‘When Ana arrived home, Pepe was/*vivía watching TV.’

The use of the progressive periphrasis estar + V[Gerund] in (17) is perfectly acceptable, since progressive aspect may be
used to situate one episodic event with respect to another (Bertinetto, 2000). However, this is not true for vivir + V
[Gerund], as the construction denotes a plurality of watching-TV events and sets a large event-time for this plurality (a
generalization over time). It is not possible to place a punctual episodic event (here, introduced by the temporal clause)
with respect to a pattern of occurrence of an event.
Both the periphrases formed with the motion verbs ir, andar, and the periphrasis formed with vivir describe a pattern of
repetition of an event for a certain time interval (i.e. a temporal structure). In this paper, I build on Laca’s proposal for ir and
andar + V[Gerund] and treat the periphrasis formed by vivir + V[Gerund] as conveying pluractional meaning, i.e. a plurality
of events. Cross-linguistically, the term pluractionality, initially proposed by Newman (1990), has been used for the
grammaticalized expression of event plurality, marked on the verb or in the VP (Cusic, 1981; Wood, 2007; Van
Geenhoven, 2004). The expression of number in the verbal domain is achieved through derivational morphology, stem
modification (reduplication) and to a lesser extent by lexical items. In North American and West African languages, the
grammatical marking of event plurality is realized through affixes and reduplication (but see Wood, 2007, who mentions a
repetitive/frequentative auxiliary verb in Ewe).
The two main types of event plurality that have been found across languages are event-internal (‘‘repetitive action’’),
when the event described consists of more than one sub-event occurring on one occasion,9 and event-external
(‘‘repeated action’’), if the same event is repeated on several (i.e. different) occasions (Cusic, 1981; Wood, 2007). In the
Romance languages, event-external plurality is encoded through auxiliary verbs (see Laca, 2005, 2006), i.e. by a lexical
strategy. The periphrasis vivir + V[Gerund] denotes event external plurality, i.e. repetition of an event on multiple
occasions and may not be interpreted in terms of repetition of sub-events on a single occasion. In particular, the
periphrasis vivir + V[Gerund] encodes event frequency (meaning ‘to V all the time’, ‘to keep V-ing’). I discuss its properties
with respect to parameters of pluractionality in the next section.

3.1. Parameters of pluractionality cross-linguistically

Building on Cusic (1981), I will focus now on the properties of vivir + V[Gerund] with respect to three parameters of
pluractional constructions found to be relevant across languages: relative measure, connectedness, and distribution.

3.1.1. Relative measure

Within pluractional constructions that denote event-internal repetition (‘‘repetitive action’’), Cusic identifies several
meanings that depend on ‘‘the quantitative ideas of decrease and increase’’ (Cusic, 1981:81). When an event consists of
multiple repeated phases, a high or low number of iterations as well as the size of the temporal gaps between iterations
can contribute different types of event descriptions. Cusic proposes different categories of pluractionals according to: size
and importance of each sub-event within the relevant time interval, degree of effort involved in the realization of the event,
and (in)sufficiency of the number of iterated sub-events to produce a result. For example, Cusic identifies categories like
‘‘tentative’’ for an action performed with less effort than expected, or ‘‘cumulative’’, for an action repeated multiple times
until an effect is achieved.
For event-external repetition (‘‘repeated action’’), Cusic proposes two categories: this type of repetition may involve
either (i) small gaps between event iterations and/or precise number of repeated events, or (ii) large gaps and/or an
indeterminate number of repeated events.
The periphrasis vivir + V[Gerund] involves a large number of repeated events; it is incompatible with adverbials denoting a
low cardinality of occasions like pocas veces ‘few times’ or de vez en cuando ‘from time to time’, as shown in (18):

8
There are other reasons, both theoretical and empirical, to analyze pluractional categories as pertaining to eventuality modification or
Aktionsart rather than viewpoint aspect (see Cusic, 1981; Wood, 2007; Amaral, 2013 for detailed discussion and an analysis of the meaning of
viver + V[Gerund] in Brazilian Portuguese).
9
Event-internal plurality seems to be encoded through derivational morphology in the Romance languages (see e.g. Tovena and Kihm, 2008).
112 P. Amaral / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 105--121

(18) En Bogotá vive lloviendo todo el tiempo/?pocas veces/?de vez en cuando.

‘In Bogotá it keeps raining all the time/?few times/?from time to time.’

The periphrasis denotes an indefinite repetition of events. The cardinality of the set of events cannot be explicitly
predicated, as shown by the unacceptability of the following sentence:

(19) ?En Bogotá vive lloviendo diez veces.

‘?In Bogotá it keeps raining ten times’.

Example (19) is ruled out because the periphrasis denotes an event that is repeated frequently and on an undetermined
number of occasions.
According to Cusic, there is a relation between pluractionals denoting a large count and repeated action described as
customary and uncountable: ‘‘[t]he number of occasions on which an action has been performed is so great that the
reference to individual occasions and events is lost, and the action becomes a property attributed to the agent’’ (Cusic,
1981:93). This is true for the periphrasis vivir + V[Gerund], as will be shown in section 3.2. In this case, the frequency of the
event is presented as a characterizing property of an individual or an entity.
Although Cusic only mentions the notions of appropriateness and sufficiency of repetitions for event-internal
pluractionals, these notions are relevant both for event-internal and for event-external plurality, as will be shown by the
properties of vivir + V[Gerund].

3.1.2. Connectedness
This parameter pertains to the restrictions on the properties of the time interval of which the pluractional is being
asserted, in particular the prominence of bounds, as well as the distinctiveness (and separation) of the individual event
repetitions. The periphrasis vivir + V[Gerund] must hold for a large time interval, as shown by the unacceptability of (20):

(20) ?Hace una semana que vive lloviendo en Bogotá.

‘?It has been a week since it keeps raining in Bogotá’.

It is not entirely clear whether this property is an independent requirement, or rather follows from the previous
parameter and general pragmatic constraints. Expressions that denote customary action require a relatively large
time span; one cannot talk about a habit or a characterizing property unless it persists over time. For this reason, the
precise boundaries of the time interval are not clearly determined. The periphrasis is incompatible with temporal
expressions that introduce a boundary to the interval of which the periphrasis holds; the time interval must be
unbounded:

(21) ?Desde el mes pasado le viven diciendo al mundo que están en contra del régimen político.
‘?Since last month (they) keep telling the world that they oppose the political regime’.

With respect to distinctiveness of each event repetition, the periphrasis denotes discontinuous individual repetitions
(i.e. the sub-intervals of which the event denoted by the Gerund holds are preceded and followed by sub-intervals at which
the event does not hold).

3.1.3. Distribution
The periphrasis denotes a plurality of occasions over an extended time interval; it can only be distributive in space or in
number of participants if there are multiple occasions (i.e. we can have multiple locations and multiple participants only if
the event is also repeated multiple times).
The properties of vivir + V[Gerund] within parameters of pluractional meanings cross-linguistically are summarized in
Table 3.

Table 3
Properties of vivir + V[Gerund] with respect to the parameters of pluractional meaning proposed by Cusic (1981).

Parameters Vivir + V[Gerund]

Relative measure Large and undetermined count (uncountable)

Connectedness Discontinuous event repetitions, unbounded time interval (vaguely delimited)
Distribution Distributive in time
 P. Amaral / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 105--121 113

3.2. Event iteration vs. genericity

Given that the periphrasis vivir + V[Gerund] introduces a repetition of events, one may ask whether its meaning is
equivalent to that of adverbs of quantification like repeatedly or always.
An important distinction established by Bertinetto and Lenci (2012) may shed light on this question. They propose that
within the expression of repeated action one must distinguish between mere event iteration (in their term, ‘‘iterativity’’) and
habituality (‘‘gnomic imperfectivity’’). In the former case we have repetition of events considered individually, whereas in
the latter the repetition is described as a law-like generalization or a characterizing property of an entity.
In this paper, I will consider the distinction between event iteration and gnomic imperfectivity with respect to the
interpretation of frequency adverbs and the meaning of vivir + V[Gerund]. A frequency adverb that introduces event iteration,
like siempre ‘always’, may receive two types of interpretation, a non-generic and a generic one, exemplified in (22) and (23),
respectively. Sentence (22) denotes event repetition, i.e. it describes a plurality of events of arriving in the office at a certain
time for the specified time interval, last week. On the other hand, sentence (23) constitutes a generic (or gnomic) statement:

(22) La semana pasada siempre llegué a mi despacho a las 9. [Event repetition]

‘Last week I always arrived at my office at 9’.

(23) Siempre hago ejercicio al aire libre. [Gnomic statement]

‘I always exercise outdoors.’

While both sentences involve a repetition of events, their meaning is different. Sentence (22) introduces a repetition of an
event during a certain time interval, hence allowing for a ‘‘numerical specification of the micro-events’’ (Bertinetto and
Lenci, 2012:855). On the other hand, (23) is not a statement about a set of individual events. Rather, the iteration of
exercising events is presented as a characterizing property of an individual and the sentence has a generic interpretation.
The number of iterated events is left undetermined and the length of the time interval is extended. For this reason,
Bertinetto and Lenci propose that the notion of event iteration must be considered along a second dimension, an axis of
‘‘gnomic imperfectivity’’, both concepts being best conceived as forming a continuum. Sentences (22) and (23) both
denote event iteration but the former does not have a gnomic or generic interpretation, while the latter does.
While a frequency adverb like siempre ‘always’ may receive both non-generic and generic interpretations, the
periphrasis vivir + V[Gerund] cannot be used to denote mere event repetition. Rather, the periphrasis denotes event
frequency as a characterizing property of an individual or an entity. Specifically, the frequency of the event described by
the verb in the gerund is evaluated by the speaker as higher than expected or sufficient. The periphrasis can only be
appropriately used in contexts in which the properties of an individual or entity (and not the specific number of iterations,
for example) are relevant in the discourse context.
More importantly, I will propose that event frequency, as a specific category within event plurality, undergoes pragmatic
enrichment. The restricted distribution of the frequentative periphrasis, described in the next section, has parallels in the
nominal domain, where expressions denoting a large or excessive number (sometimes called ‘‘large plurals’’) are
associated with evaluative meanings. These uses of plural forms, both in the nominal and in the verbal domain, do not
depict a specific number of referents (entities or events). Rather, the expression of high number is used to signal a
situation that deviates from a normal or sufficient quantity (which is not necessarily singular in absolute terms).

3.3. The evaluative meaning of vivir + V[Gerund]

After having presented the syntactic and semantic properties of the periphrastic construction, we turn now to its
pragmatic properties, i.e. to the discourse conditions under which vivir + V[Gerund] can be felicitously used. The
examples below show that the periphrasis is not associated with a negative evaluation of the event denoted by the verb in
the Gerund, as was suggested in the excerpt from the Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Españ ola. For example, in (24), it is
clear from the passage that the writer evaluates the event of ‘‘telling the world’’ as legitimate and justified.

(24) Esos millones de abstencionistas han actuado a conciencia, con su legítimo derecho de abstenerse hace años
le viven diciendo al mundo
CL live-PRES-3PL say-GER to.the world
que no comparten las reglas de juego de la ‘‘democracia’’ oligárquica que tenemos.
[http://www.lanacion.com.co/2011/02/11/alexander-molina-guzman-21/, retrieved on 10/11/2012]
‘Those millions of pro-abstention people have followed their conscience; with their legitimate right to abstain they
have been telling the world for years that they don’t share the rules of the oligarchic ‘‘democracy’’ that we have.’
114 P. Amaral / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 105--121

By repeatedly refusing to vote, the pro-abstention people are stating their opinion over and over again. In this example, it is
not the event of stating one’s opinion (in a symbolic way) per se that is evaluated, but rather the frequency of that event;
the number of times the pro-abstention people have told the world what they think by refusing to vote should have been
enough to have an effect. The repetition of these symbolic statements is evaluated as more than sufficient. This meaning
differs from event iteration, as can be shown by looking at the interpretation of the sentence with the adverb siempre
‘always’ in (240 ):

(240 ) # Esos millones de abstencionistas han actuado a conciencia; con su legítimo derecho de abstenerse hace
años que dicen siempre al mundo que no comparten las reglas. . .

Although sentence (240 ) is grammatical, it is not felicitous in this context. Here, the question under discussion is
the (lack of) effect or result from the repeated events of expressing disagreement. I will propose that the periphrasis does
not convey an evaluation of the event denoted by the verb in the Gerund, but rather of the frequency of that event. The
event has occurred often enough to yield a result and yet, as it is clear from the context in (24), it has not had the desired
effect.
That the periphrasis may not be felicitously used to express mere event iteration can be seen in (25). Here, the adverb
siempre can be used as a response to a question about the number of iterations or the regularity of an event, but the use of
the periphrasis yields an infelicitous response:

(25) [Context: Talking about a common friend]:

?
A: -- Cuántas veces a la semana va a la universidad en coche?
‘How many times per week does she drive to the university?’
a. B: - Va siempre en coche.
‘She always drives to the university.’
b. B: - #Vive yendo en coche.
live-PRES-3SG go-GER in car

It is important to point out that the periphrasis cannot be felicitously used as an answer to a question about someone’s
habits, a context in which siempre is felicitous:
?
(26) A: - Qué sueles hacer los domingos por la noche?
‘What do you usually do on Sunday night?’
a. B: - Voy siempre al cine.
‘I always go to the movies.’
b. B: - #Vivo yendo al cine.
live-PRES-1SG go-GER to.the movies

In (26), the discourse sets up a question about B’s habits, and yet the use of vivir + V[Gerund] is not felicitous. This
example shows that iteration or frequency of an event is not sufficient to license the use of the periphrasis. As shown in
(27), the periphrasis requires a context in which an evaluation of the frequency of the event denoted by the verb in the
gerund is part of the intended meaning.

?
(27) Q: Todavía no has terminado tu tesis?
‘Q: You haven’t finished your dissertation yet?’
a) A: #Voy siempre al cine.
go-PRES-1SG always to.the movies
b) A: Vivo yendo al cine.
c) A: Voy demasiado al cine.
‘I go too much to the movies’.

In (27b), A’s answer conversationally implicates that A has not finished her dissertation, and that the reason for that
fact is that A spends too much time going to the movies, instead of using that time to write up her dissertation. As
in (27c), the acceptability of the response as a felicitous answer to the question relies on the fact that both (b) and
(c) assert that the frequency of going-to-the-movies events is greater than expected or normal, i.e. the speaker goes
more often than she/he should. For this reason, the hearer may infer that the speaker does not have enough time for
other activities, like dissertation writing. On the other hand, (27a) is not felicitous as an answer to this question
 P. Amaral / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 105--121 115

Table 4
Differences between the frequency adverb siempre and the periphrasis Vivir + V [Gerund].

Siempre Vivir + Gerund

Event repetition Yes Yes

Gnomic interpretation Possible Yes
Evaluative Possible Yes

because it simply asserts that for a contextually relevant set of occasions, the speaker goes to the movies on
those occasions.10
As we have seen above, the periphrasis vivir + V[Gerund] is not compatible with cardinal adverbials denoting an exact
number of iterated events. While the precise number of repetitions is not relevant (in fact, it is vague or non-determinable),
the construction implies that the number of event iterations exceeds a normal or sufficient quantity. This is particularly
clear in (28), where the intended meaning is that the world praises democracy and democrats without having questioned
the value of this system:

(28) Un momento, el mundo moderno vive haciendo alabanzas a la democracia, diciendo, ese es un demócrata.
Nadie ha cuestionado si la democracia es buena o mala.
[Source: http://laparrilla.co/tirado_laureano.pdf, retrieved on 11/10/2012]
‘Wait a moment -- the modern world keeps praising democracy, saying things like ‘‘That guy is a democrat’’.
[And yet] nobody has asked whether democracy is good or bad.’

Here, the verbal construction means more often than it should be the case, and for this reason in this context the
periphrasis and the frequency adverb siempre are not interchangeable. A frequency adverb like siempre may be used in a
context in which the speaker intends to convey dissatisfaction regarding the excessive number of repetitions of an event, but
crucially, this value is not systematically associated with the meaning of the adverb, it may be triggered in a particular context.
The difference between siempre and the periphrasis vivir + V[Gerund] is summarized in Table 4.
In the next section, I will propose that this evaluative component of the meaning of vivir + V[Gerund] reflects a more
general phenomenon associated with the linguistic category of plurality.

4. Plural meanings

In his typological study of the category number, Corbett points out that number as a nominal category can have ‘‘special
uses’’, in that it may receive ‘‘affective’’ meanings (Corbett, 2000:234). Importantly, this type of meanings is associated with
the plural and not with the singular or with the dual or trial, for example, for languages that also distinguish these categories.
Special uses of number tend to be constrained in their distribution. According to Corbett, ‘‘affective’’ meanings of plural forms
do not necessarily indicate a plurality of referents. I will adopt here Součková’s definition of special plurals as ‘‘plurals that
express meanings that go beyond simple plurality (‘more than one’)’’ (Součková, 2011:186).’’11
For example, in Finnish, both a single plural noun phrase and two conjoined plural noun phrases may be used to express
the speaker’s dissatisfaction about a large quantity of some entity or about an expectation that seems excessive, as in (29):

(29) Vielä tässä venäjä-t-kin pitä-isi osa-ta!

as.well here Russian-PL-also must-COND-3SG can-INF
‘(so you suppose) one should know (also) Russian (language), too!’ [from Corbett, 2000:235, ex. [29]
= ‘So you expect me to know Russian too!’

In (29), Russian receives a plural suffix. This example can be felicitously used in a context in which knowing Russian is
seen as an excessive expectation (i.e. something which is expected on top of many other things).12 This could also be
expressed by using two conjoined plural noun phrases, as in (290 ):

10
For some native speakers, the answer containing siempre becomes more felicitous in this context if the adverb is preposed (Siempre voy al
cine) or if a causal connection is made explicit (Es que siempre voy al cine). This is indeed to be expected on the account proposed, as word order
is sensitive to information structure and is known to be one possible device to express a marked interpretation (cf. Ward and Birner, 2004).
11
To clarify, Součková’s definition pertains to Hausa pluractional forms, i.e. to the verbal domain. I am extending it here to encompass the
special meanings found both in the nominal and in the verbal domain.
12
For some speakers, the English translation of example (29) should contain even: ‘And on top of all that even Russian one is supposed to
know!’ (Lauri Karttunen, p.c.).
116 P. Amaral / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 105--121

(290 ) Ruotsi-t ja venäjä-t pitä-isi osa-ta.

Swedish-PL and Russian-PL must-COND-3SG know-INF
‘Swedish and Russian one is supposed to know (on top of many other things).’ (Lauri Karttunen, p.c.)

Another affective use of the plural in Finnish is the ‘‘intensificative’’ plural (called ‘‘emphatic, intensive plural’’ by Penttilä
(1957)), as in (30) and (31)13:

(30) käy-dä Turut ja Pori-t

visit-INF Turku-PL and Pori-PL
‘visit Turkus and Poris (visit many towns)’

(31) kulke-a maa-t ja manteree-t

travel-INF country-PL and continent-PL
‘travel through countries and continents’

Here, the use of two plurals amplifies the idea of going to many places, but does not necessarily denote a plural referent,
as each pluralized proper name in (30) is the name of a town.
In Dagaare, a West African language, there is a plural form with an evaluative interpretation, which contrasts with
another existing plural form. This contrast can be seen in (32a), with the normal plural of ‘head’ (zúrí), and the so-called
‘‘second plural’’ (zúrέέ), which has an evaluative (pejorative) use in (32b), cited from Bodomo (2006).

(32) a. À dɔ́bɔ́ zúrí ŋmàrὲὲ lá

DEF man.PL head.PL break focus.part
‘The men’s heads are smashed’ (describing accident situation)
b. À dɔ́bɔ́ zúrέέ gbòlèè gbóléé.
DEF man.PL head.PL huge huge
‘The men’s heads are huge’ (said in a derisive way)

Several languages have a split within the plural, distinguishing between a form used to denote low values or an amount
considered to be normal, and a form for greater number, known as ‘‘plural of abundance’’, that often receives an
implication of excessive number (see Corbett, 2000 and the section on ‘‘Greater number’’ for a summary of different
languages).14
If we turn now to the expression of plurality in the verbal domain, i.e. event plurality, we find a parallel situation. It has
been pointed out that forms that denote event repetition or non-singularity of actions are associated with ‘‘a sphere of other
categorial meanings, which are generally not connected with quantitative oppositions’’ (Dolinina, 1997:488). For example,
the verb prefix na- in the Russian ‘‘intensive reflexive’’ construction in (33) contributes the implication of a negative result
from too much smoking (Dolinina, 1997:489):

(33) Ja na-kur-il-a-s’ do golovn-oj bol-i

I PRF-smoke-PAST-F:SG-REFL up.to head-F:SG:GEN ache-SG:GEN
lit.:‘I have smoked myself up to a headache’

Similarly, pluractional verbs in Hausa are associated with a range of special meanings, among which a ‘‘high degree
interpretation’’,15 although there seems to be speaker variability as to how they should be interpreted (Součková, 2011).
Součková argues that this value of ‘‘[i]ntensification is just another way of enhancing the basic plurality meaning’’

13
Examples (30) and (31) are from Penttilä (1957:456). Under the heading ‘‘Emfaattinen, intensiivinen monikko’’ (Emphatic, intensive plural),
Penttilä says: ‘‘The plural forms of a word are often used without the intention to indicate that there are several referents. Plurality is there just to
lend the expression effectiveness, persuasiveness, sometimes a shade of boasting. The fact that such plural forms often occur twice, even three
times, serves the same purpose.’’ (Penttilä, 1957:456, translation by L. Karttunen).
14
Cusic compares this special plural of Arabic with the value of repeated plural nouns in English, like We saw houses and houses, which
‘‘generally produce the effect of a measure phrase indicating a great, or uncountable, quantity. . .Countability per se is no longer relevant, being
replaced by the notion of an increased relative quantity’’ (Cusic, 1981:18). For languages like Breton and classical Arabic, there seems to be a link
between size and lack of individuation of the entities (see Acquaviva, 2008:254).
15
For this reason, it has been suggested that these verbs receive a degree interpretation rather than event plurality (see Součková, 2011 for
discussion).
 P. Amaral / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 105--121 117

(Součková, 2011:191) and claims that it should not be treated in terms of a semantic (degree) component. Součková
points out that this meaning component can be described as an implication that the event was somehow serious or
‘abnormal’ in some way (Součková, 2011:192). The author also reports uses involving ‘‘affective connotations’’ in Hausa,
e.g. a negative evaluation of the event described: ‘‘In particular, for some speakers the use of the pluractional implies that
the event being described is to be evaluated negatively in some sense’’ (Součková, 2011:195). This evaluation may be an
implication derived from the plurality of events, multiple places and/or multiple participants involved, as these may exceed
or contravene a contextually-given expectation.
As we have seen in section 3.1.2, forms denoting event-internal plurality (‘‘repetitive action’’) contribute meanings
pertaining to degree of effort involved in the event, success or failure of the event, or appropriateness of the number of
repetitions (Cusic, 1981:81; see also Xrakovskij, 1997, among others). Among the event-internal pluractional categories
found across languages, Cusic reports ‘‘intensive’’ meanings, as in (34) and (35), ‘‘conative’’ and ‘‘incassative’’16
meanings, as in (36), and ‘‘excessive’’ meanings, as in (37). These forms depict situations in which some event has been
repeated and they all have in common that event repetition is associated with another notion that is not quantitative, e.g.
the effect obtained or the degree of effort that was involved in the event. High degree is a common aspect of the meaning
of pluractional morphemes, and has been treated within the field of verbal plurality since Dressler (1968).

(34) tlania ‘ask’, tlatlania ‘ask insistently’ (Nahuatl, Cusic, 1981:84)

(35) kasara ‘he broke (something)’, kassara ‘he smashed (something), i.e. by repeated and forceful blows’
(Arabic, Cusic, 1981:85)

(36) wit ‘to walk’, witwitnay ‘to walk aimlessly’ (Zoque, Cusic, 1981:84)

(37) miyandaɲu ‘(he) laughs’, miymiyandaɲu ‘(he) laughs more than is appropriate’; balgan ‘hit’, balbalgan
‘hit too much’ (Dyirbal, Cusic, 1981:86)

Similar examples have been reported for other languages (see Wood and Garrett, 2002; Wood, 2007). The examples
presented in this section show that both in the nominal and in the verbal domains plural forms may be associated with a
range of meanings that do not pertain to a count of referents.
Event plurality has traditionally been studied either as an aspectual notion -- a repetition of single situations -- and
hence as parasitic on the notion of single action, or as being an instance of an aspectual category like imperfective or
durative (Cusic, 1981). However, if we focus on multiple action as a separate category, we identify a number of semantic
and pragmatic properties not reducible to either of these views. Nominal and verbal plurals may be used to express
notions that cannot be captured by the notions of countability or quantity. The process by which the expression of high
number of events as a verbal category is systematically associated with special meanings can be better understood if we
treat event plurality as a case of the broader category of plurality.

5. The pragmatics of number

The evaluative meaning of vivir + V[Gerund] should not be understood as an isolated, idiosyncratic property of this
construction. Rather, it results from a process of pragmatic enrichment commonly found with expressions that denote a
high number, both in the nominal and in the verbal domain, leading to inferences that may become conventionalized to
different degrees. I would like to propose a unified account of this phenomenon by which a plural form comes to denote a
non-stereotypical quantity, i.e. a quantity that is unexpectedly high.
My account relies on the idea that when a plural form is marked in some way (e.g. by being morphologically more
complex or lengthy),17 this form may be associated with evaluative meanings. As we have seen, certain languages

16
Conative is defined as ‘‘repetitive action falls short of producing some desired result. . .there seem to be many little efforts, but they are not
enough’’ (Cusic, 1981:83) and incassative: ‘‘repetitive plurality in which there is no attempt to do anything in particular, merely an aimless or
undirected activity’’ (Cusic, 1981:83--84). In both cases, the definitions indicate that the number of sub-events is evaluated with respect to an
expectation or a goal.
17
It is important to clarify that I am not stating that a plural form is always marked. In fact, it is known that there are languages in which certain
nouns are unmarked for plural and marked for singular (see Corbett, 2000 and for a recent analysis of specific languages, Grimm, 2012). In these
cases, the general number form coincides with the plural and the language has a separate form for singular in parts of the noun inventory of the
language. Rather, I am proposing that if a language has a morphologically more complex or lengthy form to express plurality that contrasts with a
simpler or shorter one (where this contrast may be with a singular form or with another plural form available in the language), the morphologically
more complex one will be the one associated with an evaluative meaning.
118 P. Amaral / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 105--121

distinguish two types of nominal plural forms, one that denotes a small, countable set, and one that denotes a
large, uncountable set. In the verbal domain, languages have devices to express mere event repetition (i.e. a
possibly specifiable count of repeated events) and uncountable event repetition associated with generic
meanings, like the verbal periphrasis studied here. Such verbal constructions are similar to the cases described
in the nominal domain in that they are not associated with a denumerable quantity of events. As we have seen, vivir
+ V[Gerund] is not compatible with cardinal adverbials. Event frequency is used to convey not a specific number of
repeated events but rather a characterizing property of an entity as well as a deviation from a normal or expected
quantity.
Notice that in some of the previous examples there was a mismatch between the actual number of entities referred
to in the real world (e.g. one town named Turku in example [30]) and the number form chosen in the linguistic
expression (the plural of that proper name). We can see a similar strategy in the choice of nominal plurality here and in
the choice of verbal plurality with vivir + V[Gerund]. In both cases, the exact number (of cities being referred to, in the
former example, or events, in the periphrasis), is not relevant. In fact, on the literal meaning of vivir, it would be required
that the subject of the verb spends his/her life constantly performing the event described by the verb in the Gerund.
Rather, the speaker chooses the plural noun form and the verbal periphrasis to convey the view that the quantity of
entities or events involved in the described situation is excessive or more than sufficient. These restricted values,
considered ‘‘exaggerative’’ or ‘‘intensificative’’ occur with plural forms that denote a vague or unspecified large
quantity. Crucially, a form like the dual cannot be used in this way, since it denotes a definite number (Corbett,
2000:237).
Plural forms that receive ‘‘special uses’’, both in the nominal and in the verbal domain, tend to be marked at some formal
level: e.g. by a plural suffix in the case of nouns (typically when there is a number-neutral form in the language), by stem
reduplication, by the addition of affixes, or in general by morphological complexity (e.g. length of expression in a periphrastic
construction). In the verbal domain, these forms are sometimes said to be less frequent (for example in Hausa, see
Součková, 2011:186). In languages that do not have dedicated forms for event plurality, these ‘‘special uses’’ of repeated
action are conveyed by marked forms like repeated conjuncts (e.g. the English example It rains and rains and rains, see
Levinson, 2000:151).
I will propose here that this phenomenon can be given a pragmatic explanation. In the neo-Gricean tradition, we find
two similar theoretical accounts that may be used to explain this phenomenon, Horn’s ‘‘Division of Pragmatic Labor’’
(Horn, 1984) and Levinson’s three heuristics (Levinson, 2000). Both proposals are close in spirit, and I believe that they do
not make different predictions concerning the facts presented here. However, Horn discusses in more detail the
consequences of these pragmatic principles for patterns of lexicalization.
In Levinson’s proposal, generalized conversational implicatures are generated by three main types of heuristics (or
general reasoning principles used in interpretation): Q(uantity), M(anner) and I(nformativeness). Both Q- and M-based
inferences rely on metalinguistic knowledge; the hearer compares terms within sets of linguistic alternatives that a
speaker could choose from a specific utterance. For M-based inferences, the comparison relies on a contrast in form, in
that formal (morphological) complexity corresponds to semantic markedness:
‘‘. . .such forms [more morphologically complex. . .more prolix or periphastic] suggest some additional meaning or
connotation absent from the corresponding unmarked forms.’’ (Levinson, 2000:137).
On this view, the use of an unmarked or simpler alternative is interpreted as depicting the normal or stereotypical situation
by the I heuristic, while the marked expression tends to become associated with the abnormal or non-stereotypical
situation (the complement set of the extension of the unmarked expression).
Horn’s ‘‘Division of Pragmatic Labor’’ explains the process of pragmatic enrichment through the forces of two
competing pragmatic principles, Q and R (inspired by, but not strictly equivalent to, Grice’s categories of Quantity and
Relation).18 Horn’s Q principle accounts for the inferences triggered by the choice of a complex or prolix expression
when a morphologically simpler alternative is available in the language: assuming a cooperative speaker, ‘‘more
form’’ implicates ‘‘more meaning’’. The contribution of the R principle, and in particular its workings in shaping the
structure of the lexicon, explains how this inferential process guides the specialization of meanings. The R principle
accounts for the inference to the most stereotypical or salient member(s) of a set, based on real-world knowledge
(Horn, 1984:33). To exemplify, the Latin noun pecūnia, derived from the noun meaning ‘livestock’, came to denote
‘property or wealth’ as livestock was the major source of wealth and a medium of exchange before the development
of a monetary system. With time, its etymological value was lost. As Horn points out, this process of pragmatic
enrichment may be based on cultural facts (as in this example) or on generalizations that may arise from frequent
contexts of use of a form.

18
For a thorough discussion of the Q and R principles and their role in lexicalization, see Horn (2004) and Traugott (2004).
 P. Amaral / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 105--121 119

When explaining the evaluative meaning of expressions denoting high number, the combination of Q and R is of
particular interest. On the one hand, Q accounts for the fact that more complex and longer expressions receive an
interpretation that is different from that of the corresponding simpler expressions. On the other hand, R accounts for the
pragmatic enrichment that the more complex expressions receive. When the language provides a pair of expressions in
which one is simpler and denotes a specifiable plural quantity, and another expression which is more complex and
denotes a large and unspecifiable quantity (either of entities or events), the latter expression is associated with ‘‘special’’
meanings. While the former expression is associated with the notion of number (i.e. with a plurality of referents), the latter
expression will denote a deviation from a normal quantity, possibly related to notions like sufficiency or importance of the
entities or the events. In the verbal domain, evaluative meanings pertain to an evaluation of the quantity of repetitions -- as
sufficient or insufficient (i.e. as being more or less than some norm).
I believe that this proposal has implications for the neo-Gricean frameworks. First, the findings suggest that the non-
stereotypical interpretation that the marked form receives may be a categorially different meaning (in this case, a
reinterpretation of the category number). The expression of high number both in the nominal and in the verbal domain is
used to signal a situation that deviates from a normal or sufficient quantity. These expressions do not denote number or
quantity per se, but rather a modal notion associated with an excessive quantity. This interpretation cannot be strictly
considered the complement set of the extension of the corresponding unmarked expression, e.g. of a plural expression
meaning ‘more than singular’.
Second, both in Horn (1984) and Levinson (2000), the work of the pragmatic principles is typically explained with
respect to lexical doublets, pairs of a morphologically simple (unmarked) expression versus a morphologically complex
(marked) expression. Although some of these doublets are very intuitive (e.g. for double negation, as in It is possible vs. It
is not impossible), in other cases it is not clear how that particular pair has been extracted from the set of possible
alternatives in the lexicon. The case of the plural is particularly interesting in this connection, as the ‘‘Division of Pragmatic
Labor’’ does not seem to affect only a specific doublet, but rather introduces a tendency in the lexicalization and
interpretation of the category number. The principles that underlie the special values of plurality considered here affect a
whole class of forms across languages that are associated with the category plural both for nominal and verbal forms.
These may be periphrastic constructions, repeated conjuncts, reduplicated forms, or forms with added affixes -- i.e. more
complex forms that are in paradigmatic opposition with morphologically simpler forms. While the simple forms tend to be
associated with a quantity (specific or countable), the complex forms serve other purposes and are often used to express
an undetermined large quantiy, generalizations (i.e. a law-like regularity) or affective notions.
A possible objection to my proposal is that the evaluative meanings described in this paper are simply the semantic
contribution of each construction considered here, and owe nothing to general pragmatic principles or the interpretation
of plural forms as a class. There are several reasons to treat these special uses of plural forms as resulting from
pragmatic enrichment of the category plurality, rather than being semantic or idiosyncratic properties of specific
constructions. First, although in certain languages special plurals have dedicated forms, both in the nominal and in the
verbal domain, it is true that in languages that do not have such grammaticalized forms, plural forms may receive
additional evaluative meanings. This type of use has been reported for several languages, suggesting that this is a
strategy of language use that may in some cases become lexicalized. As mentioned before, repeated conjuncts in
English fulfill this function, e.g. in It rains and rains and rains or in He drank beers and beers. Crucially, in languages that
do not have a separate form for a special plural, this interpretation may arise as a consequence of a mismatch between
the actual number of entities or events in the real world, available from context, and the inappropriate (from a literal point
of view) use of the plural form to describe that situation. Second, as we have seen in section 3.1.2, both verbal forms
denoting repetitive action and repeated action are associated with inferences that are consistently found across
genetically unrelated languages. These forms systematically license inferences about sufficiency of repetitions,
intensity, or effort, for both event-internal and event-external plurality. Similar evaluative meanings are found in
morphologically reduplicated forms (see Hurch, 2005; Kouwenberg, 2003 for this phenomenon in contact languages).
For these reasons, the generation of these evaluative meanings does not seem to be an idiosyncratic phenomenon of
certain constructions, but rather reveals a tendency in the interpretation of plural forms that is grounded in principles of
cooperative language use.
Finally, the evaluative meaning effects described should be treated as a pragmatic phenomenon because there is
some variability in speakers’ judgments as to the exact interpretation of these ‘‘special plurals’’. These meaning effects are
often not clearly determined, a property known to be associated with pragmatic inferences rather than with semantic
implications.19

19
A similar view is held by Součková, who proposes that in Hausa these meaning effects are pragmatic and hypothesizes that they result from
the status of pluractional forms as special plurals; these forms are in paradigmatic opposition with forms that are number-neutral (Součková,
2011:197).
120 P. Amaral / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 105--121

6. Conclusion

In this paper, I have discussed the pragmatic properties of the frequentative periphrasis vivir + V[Gerund] in the
Spanish of Bogotá. I have proposed that the evaluative meaning of this construction reveals a common property of plurals
that do not denote a specific (or specifiable) quantity or a small number, but rather denote large counts or uncountable
amounts, both in the verbal and in the nominal domains. Although this correspondence between form and meaning may
be seen as inherently iconic (as suggested e.g. by Corbett, among others), I have proposed a neo-Gricean account of the
inferences licensed by these expressions, which in some cases may result in lexicalization patterns. Plural forms that
denote a large (or unspecifiable) count tend to develop special meanings; instead of quantity, they denote a deviation from
a sufficient or expected amount. These expressions are often morphologically more complex than expressions denoting a
specific or countable quantity, suggesting a ‘‘Division of Pragmatic Labor’’ (Horn, 1984). The alternative term or terms that
the marked form contrasts with depends on the syntactic category of the expression and on language-specific factors.
Previous research on event plurality has focused on the temporal structures of different types of meanings (e.g.
habitual, frequentative). The algebraic properties of these structures show parallels with plural structures in the nominal
domain (Landman, 2000; Bach, 1986; Laca, 2006). This research has brought to light the semantic analogies between the
nominal and the verbal domains. But to my knowledge, the pragmatic properties of event plurality and in particular of
expressions denoting a high number of repeated events, as they relate to nominal plurality, have not been investigated.
Yet, the parallel study of verbal and nominal plurality under this perspective may bring insight into the pragmatic properties
of the category number. This perspective may help determine the nature of the oppositions relevant in the domain of
number (for example, which categories are attested in language inventories and how they are organized). This study also
contributes to the identification of general patterns of inference associated with plural forms, possibly cognitively
grounded. In this sense, the present study can be seen as extending the inquiry about the similarities and differences
between ‘‘number-like properties’’ (Corbett, 2000:251) in the nominal and in the verbal domains. Note that although we
find evaluative meanings both in the nominal and in the verbal domain, notions like degree of effort, intensity of action, or
the ability to achieve an intended result are specific to the verbal domain (as they relate to event-internal and event-
external plurality).
Finally, the findings presented here provide support for the need to study event plurality as a separate category, rather
than being a special case of imperfective meaning within the study of aspect (as also argued by Cusic, 1981; Wood, 2007).
The pragmatic properties of event plurality, when studied in relation with plurality in the nominal domain, may contribute to
a better understanding of the linguistic properties of number across categories and its cognitive underpinnings.

References

Abeillé, Anne, Danièle, Godard, 2010. Complex predicates in the Romance Languages. In: Abeillé, Anne, Danièle, Godard (Eds.), Fundamental
Issues in the Romance Languages. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp. 107--170.
Acquaviva, Paolo, 2008. Lexical Plurals. A Morphosemantic Approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Aissen, Judith, Perlmutter, David, 1976. Clause reduction in Spanish. Berkeley Linguistics Society 2, 1--30.
Alonso, Amado, 1951. Estudios Lingüísticos. Temas españoles. Gredos [ELTE], Madrid.
Alsina, Alex, Bresnan, Joan, Sells, Peter (Eds.), 1997. Complex Predicates. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.
Amaral, Patrícia, 2013. On how to live and keep dying. In: Howe, C., Blackwell, S., Quesada, M. (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the Hispanic
Linguistics Symposium 2011. Cascadilla Press, Somerville.
Bach, Emmon, 1986. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 5--16.
Bertinetto, Pier Marco, 2000. The progressive in Romance, as compared with English. In: Dahl, Ő. (Ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of
Europe. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 559--604.
Bertinetto, Pier Marco, Lenci, Alessandro, 2012. Habituality, pluractionality and imperfectivity. In: Binnick, R. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of
Tense and Aspect. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 852--880.
Bodomo, Adams, 2006. The Second Plural of Dagaare. Unpublished Ms., University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Corbett, Greville, 2000. Number. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Cusic, David D., 1981. Verbal Plurality and Aspect. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.
Dietrich, Wolf, 1973. Der Periphrastiche Verbalaspekt in den romanischen Sprachen. Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen.
Dolinina, Inga, 1997. Theoretical aspects of verbal plurality. In: Xrakovskij, V. (Ed.), Typology of Iterative Constructions. Lincom, München,
pp. 483--495.
Dressler, Wolfgang, 1968. Studien zur verbalen Pluralität. Iterativum, Distributivum, Intensivum in der allgemeinen Grammatik, in Lateinischen
und Hethitischen. Wien; Graz, Köln, Böhlau im Kommission.
Espunya, Anna, 1998. On the semantics of the Spanish progressive sequence ir + gerund. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 12, 21--42.
Grimm, Scott, 2012. Number and Individuation. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.
Horn, Laurence R., 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In: Schiffrin, D. (Ed.), Meaning,
Form, and Use in Context (GURT’84). Georgetown University Press, Washington, pp. 11--42.
Horn, Laurence R., 2004. Implicature. In: Horn, L.R., Ward, Gregory (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Blackwell, Malden, pp. 3--28.
Hurch, Bernhard (Ed.), 2005. Studies on Reduplication. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Kouwenberg, Silvia, 2003. Twice as Meaningful: Reduplication in Pidgins, Creoles and other Contact Languages. Battlebridge, London.
 P. Amaral / Journal of Pragmatics 51 (2013) 105--121 121

Laca, Brenda, 2004. Romance ‘aspectual’ periphrases: eventuality modification versus ‘syntactic’ aspect. In: Lecarme, J., Guéron, J. (Eds.), The
Syntax of Time. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 425--440.
Laca, Brenda, 2005. Périphrases aspectuelles et temps grammatical dans les langues romanes. In: Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, H., Le Querler, N. (Eds.),
Les Périphrases Verbales. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 47--66.
Laca, Brenda, 2006. Indefinites, quantifiers, and pluractionals. What scope effects tell us about event pluralities. In: Vogeleer, S., Tasmowski, L.
(Eds.), Non-definiteness and Plurality. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 191--217.
Landman, Fred., 2000. Events and Plurality. The Jerusalem Lectures. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Levinson, Stephen, 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Newman, Paul, 1990. Nominal and Verbal Plurality in Chadic. Dordrecht, Foris.
Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española, 2009. Real Academia Española and Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española: Espasa Libros.
Olbertz, Hella, 1998. Verbal Periphrases in a Functional Grammar of Spanish. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Otalóra de Fernández, Hilda, 1992. Uso del Gerundio en Algunas Muestras del Habla Bogotana. Publicaciones del Instituto Caro y Cuervo,
Santafé de Bogotá.
Penttilä, Aarni, 1957. Suomen kielioppi. Werner Söderström Osakeyhtiö, Porvoo.
Smith, Carlota S., 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Součková, Kateřina, 2011. Pluractionality in Hausa. LOT Dissertations in Linguistics, Leiden University.
Squartini, Mario, 1998. Verbal Periphrases in Romance. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Tovena, Lucia, Kihm, Alain, 2008. Event internal pluractional verbs in some Romance languages. In: Tovena, L. (Ed.), Aspect et Pluralité
d’Événements, vol. 37. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes, pp. 9--30.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, 2004. Historical pragmatics. In: Horn, L.R., Ward, Gregory (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Blackwell, Malden,
pp. 538--561.
Van Geenhoven, Veerle, 2004. For-adverbials, frequentative aspect, and pluractionality. Natural Language Semantics 12, 135--190.
Ward, Gregory, Birner, Betty, 2004. In: Horn, Laurence R., Ward, Gregory (Eds.), Information Structure and Non-canonical Syntax. Blackwell,
Malden, pp. 153--174.
Wood, Esther, 2007. The Semantic Typology of Pluractionality. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Wood, Esther, Andrew, Garrett, 2002. The semantics of Yurok Intensive infixation. Proceedings from the Fourth Workshop on American Indian
Languages, UC Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, pp. 112--126.
Xrakovskij, Viktor, 1997. Semantic types of the plurality of situations and their natural classification. In: Xrakovskij, V. (Ed.), Typology of Iterative
Constructions. Lincom, München, pp. 3--64.
Yllera, Alicia, 1979. Sintaxis Histórica del Verbo Español: Las Perífrasis Medievales. Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza.
Yllera, Alicia, 1999. Las perífrasis verbales de gerundio y participio. In: Bosque, I., Demonte, Violeta (Eds.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua
Española. Espasa, Madrid, pp. 3391--3441.
Zagona, Karen, 1988. Verb Phrase Syntax: A Parametric Study of English and Spanish. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.