First let's talk about complementizers. A complementizer takes something and turns it into something that can be used as an argument or complement in a sentence. (An argument or complement is just something that's necessary to complete a sentence. (And, for some completeness, an "adjunct" is something that can optionally be added to an already complete sentence.))
For example, if we have a sentence:
Cheese is okay with me.
We could take out "cheese" and replace it with "X," just for reference:
X is okay with me.
So "cheese" is a noun. We could also put a noun phrase where X is:
The cheese my friend gave to me is okay with me.
Now, what if we want to replace X with an entire sentence? We can add "that" to the front of the sentence or sometimes we don't even need the "that":
\1) That he acted really weird is okay with me.
Note how "He acted really weird" is a perfectly fine sentence. Nothing needs to be changed at all to use it on its own except for capitalizing the H and adding a period.
The sentence above is a good example of the so-called that-complementizer, but it's not an example of the null-complementizer. Sometimes you can just drop the beginning "that," but if you do that with (1) it gets weird:
\1') #He acted really weird is okay with me.
You'd have to do something like:
\1'') Him acting really weird is okay with me.
That's a great sentence, but, as we'll see later, for our purposes, we'll want to construct things where we don't have to modify the complementized sentence at all.
\2) Yesterday he heard that John dropped out of the race.
Here will be a decent example of the null-complementizer. Notice how "John dropped out of the race" can be used unmodified as a complete sentence. Now, this also works:
\2') Yesterday he heard John dropped out of the race.
It's a bit more informal, but it is most definitely grammatical. The place where the "that" would be is an instance of the null-complementizer.
Here's another important example that is also grammatical:
\2'') John dropped out of the race, he heard[,] yesterday.
Or just this:
\2''') John dropped out of the race, he heard.
The "_, he heard" is a "tail parenthetical" or "tail-end parenthetical."
(Also, it's worth noting that the choice between, say, (2), (2''), etc., involves considerations of so-called "information structure" or "information packaging," if you'd like to dig deeper into that at some point.)
Anyway, right before "John" in (2''') is a null-complementizer! You could add the "that" as a that-complementizer but, except in rarer contexts, it maybe seems stiff or formal:
\2'''') That John dropped out of the race, he heard [yesterday].
In the sections ahead, we will make heavy use of ideas of tail parentheticals and null-complementizers. It's worth remembering that this forms are somewhat interchangeable and both forms are useful in written narrative:
a) He understood that Sara was bored.
b) Sara was bored, he understood.
With (a) and (b), notice how the topic changes. In (a) the topic or subject is "he." In (b) the topic or subject is "Sara." And that difference in topic makes a difference in what we expect the next sentence to be in each case. This could be called topicalization and is also related to information structure.
Finally, in a later section we'll discuss further an option to leave all parentheticals implied, maybe entitling a scene or chapter with the name of a point-of view character, like the below. The reader may feel the writing is "precise" or "sharp" or "pops," or/also "flows cleanly and snappily," even if they can't put a finger on exactly why. Again, this will be discussed more later. #todo
A brief example:
John [scene or chapter name]
The air was still[, he [subliminally] felt/experienced]. Everyone was gone[, he saw/judged/observed. He stepped further into the room[, he experienced.] [...]
(The above might seem labored and redundant, but as things get more complicated the claim is that it adds a sort of "type checking" that really, really pays off. Again this will be expanded upon greatly.)
Let's start with these related example:
a1) She experienced the room: the carpet, the window treatments, [and] the weird paintings.
a2) She experienced the room. The carpet. The window treatments. The weird paintings.
b1) The room, she experienced: the carpet, the window treatments, [and] the weird paintings.
b2) The room, she experienced. The carpet. The window treatments. The weird paintings.
So (a) and (b) are different in that they're topicalized differently. But the main thing I want to point out, here, is that (a2) and (b2) make use of sentence fragments. The sentence fragments are comprehensible in part because of whole-part relations; we know the carpet, window treatments and weird paintings are parts of the room and so are probably experienced as part of the experience of the room. But also the fragments are comprehensible because of (implied) parallelism. (Parallelism is using the same syntax for one or more repetitions, within or between parts or wholes of sentences, to aid comprehension or for stylistic or emphatic purposes.) Consider (b3):
b3) The room, she experienced. The carpet, she experienced. The window treatments, she experienced. The weird paintings, she experienced.
(In this whole book, I may use "sentence" or "clause" interchangeably. When I say "clause," I usually mean independent clause.)
Of course, (b3) is clunky and redundant. And/but, (b2) above allows for emphasis of each part of the room on par with the room itself, because each whole and parts gets its own "period." And, the items being experienced are heavily topicalized because as opposed to the fact of their being experienced, and so this is another manipulation of emphasis. And, finally, parallelism allows for a clean interpretation of the fragments. So (b2) is arguably cleanly interpretable and elegant.
In short, sentence fragments can be very useful for emphasis and economy while still being unambiguously interpretable through implied parallelism.
Here's a different example with an entire complementized clause:
a) Bob was in a bad mood, she figured. He was scowling. And, he looked defeated.
b) Bob was in a bad mood, she figured. Bob was scowling, she saw. And, Bob looked defeated, she judged.
Notice how the "he" pronouns in (a) tie all three sentences together and how "she figured" establishes point-of-view. In (b), "she saw" and "she judged" are clarifying in a vacuum, but are implied and can be assumed in (a).
We might consider (a) to exemplify something like "within-paragraph point of view parallelism," or something like that. We could also do it like this:
a') Bob was in a bad mood. He was scowling. And, he looked defeated, she judged.
As long as there's a parenthetical somewhere in the paragraph, we have established point-of-view (and perhaps modality).
This can work across/between/through paragraphs, too, and for entire "episodes," scenes, or entire short stories and perhaps even larger units of text. (An episode changes when time, location, or characters change sufficiently. After an episode boundary is usually when pronouns are "refreshed" with proper nouns or sometimes epithets. And a scene change is roughly when there's a "larger" change in at least one of time, location, or characters or most especially when all three of these change.)
Compare:
a) The grass was green. The grass was soft. The grass was wet.
b) The grass was green, soft, [and] wet.
c) The grass was green. Soft. Wet.
d) The grass: Green. Soft. Wet. e) The grass was both beautiful and icky: green, soft, wet. f) The grass was both beautiful and icky---green, soft, wet. g) Green, soft, wet---the grass was both beautiful and icky.
(I'll note that (d) is probably going too far. Not having a complete sentence in front of a colon is sort of a shibboleth for something. Also, (g) would probably rub editors the wrong way, too.)
(The "---" is in em-dash, here.)
Ok, so note how "grass," "green," etc. The words on both sides of the "was" are just that: words. But they can be phrases or even full sentences!
h) The grass was green; the grass was soft; the grass was wet: it was both beautiful and icky.
i) The hedges were green; the grass was soft; the dew was wet: all these features or qualities made the park both beautiful and icky.
j) The hedges were green; the grass was soft; the dew was wet: these park elements made the experience both beautiful and icky.
With (h) and (i), I'm doing something perhaps called gathering. In (h) I'm gathering all the mentions of grass. In (i) I'm gathering all adjectives. In (j) I'm perhaps gathering all the nouns or both the nouns and their adjectives.
k) Before her was the villain. Behind her was the crowd. To her left was her best friend. They could do this. l) Before her was the villain; behind her was the crowd; to her left was her best friend---they could do this. m) Before her was the villain, his eyes glowing; behind her was the crowd, shifting audibly; to her left was her best friend, and she knew she could count on him---they could do this, as long as they stuck to the plan; and, she was pretty sure they were going to do just that.
For (k) and (l), this is sort of getting into "syntax as style," as per Virginia Tufte.
m) The angry crowd running along the beach made it so the tourists were calling the police from behind closed doors.
The point is something like don't be afraid to use whole sentences (also called [independent] clauses) where you might previously have just used words or phrases; because, this will come in handy when working with sentences that have tail-end parentheticals.
(And, as to when and where to use semicolons versus periods versus em-dashes, and so on, these stylistic factors will probably continue to become clearer as you get further in this document.)
And, finally, "gathering" is also a way to have a sort of parenthetical that can apply at once to multiple connected sentences (connected by anaphora and cataphora, e.g. pronouns), instead of a single sentence, explicitly with multiple sentences possibly more indirectly (cf. "within-paragraph point of view parallelism," discussed above).
For example:
a) She was confused that Bob was tired.
b) # Bob was tired, she was confused.
c Bob was tired; this was confusing to her.
d) Bob was tired; he was hungry; but, also he was full of energy. This [all] was confusing to her.
In these examples we see that for whatever reason, the verb "confused" doesn't make a nice parenthetical. But, we still might want to topicalize/emphasize Bob instead of the point-of-view character ("she"). And, (c) and (d) demonstrate one way to cleanly apply a "parenthetical" equally to a larger unit than just a sentence, even for verbs that don't semantically cleanly allow for the form we've seen in a previous section (cf. e.g. "experienced").
We might call the last "gathering" clause or sentence a "coda" or an "epilogue" or a "comment." #todo
(If there's something subtly confusing or weird about these examples, that's maybe hard to put your finger on, we'll probably get to that in a bit below.)
We can sort of think of "aspect" as what's "in frame" or "in the shot" or "on screen" with respect to the time course of something.
For example if we say, "The light is purple," we're not focusing on the beginning or ending of the light being purple---in this example, in a vacuum, maybe the light was blue or turned off, before or after the light being purple. In any case, at least with respect to this isolated sentence, we don't know, and we're sort of indicating that it doesn't matter so much, too, by our choice of aspect.
We sort of only showing the "middle." And this could loosely be thought of as a "stative" aspect, even if there's "stuff" going on in that "state."
Something important is that particular states can sometimes (a) compatibly, simultaneously overlap in time, and (b) sometimes particular states "cancel" each other. Here's an example:
a) He crawled. His knees hurt.
b) He crawled. He walked.
In (a) we're likely to interpret his crawling and his knees hurting as probably at least overlapping. (Additionally, his knees hurting is presumably due to him crawling.) As an outside interpretation, they might be sequential, but they're probably not; that's not our first interpretation.
But, in (b), because one (at least able humans) can't crawl and walk at the same time, we assume first he crawled and then he walked, with maybe some notable transition time or other activities happening in between, but also likely not.
So, even when we don't have explicit beginnings and endings of states in a text (though often we do!), we are fairly automatically parsing out temporal overlap, sequentiality, and even beginnings and endings of states or at least partial orderings of states. There is sometimes still ambiguity as to simultaneity versus sequentiality as well as where beginnings and endings happen with respect to other beginnings and endings, but, if the author is managing things well, that remaining ambiguity is sort of indicating that those remaining (non-)details generally don't matter or aren't worth focusing on.
Something else to notice is that in (b), even though there's sort of a change in state, so something happened with time, it's a bit ambiguous as to whether "story time" or the story "now" has moved at all. We'll get to this pretty soon.
So we've talked a little bit about statives. Now let's talk about everything else, which we might generally term "non-statives" or "nonstatives".
As mentioned before, loosely speaking, since we've sort of referring to statives as "middles," as an aspect, that leaves beginnings and endings as an aspect. That is, for beginning and ending aspects, we sort of actually get to see the beginnings and endings "on screen" or "in the shot." When seeing a beginning or ending we of course probably get to see sort of a bit of the "middle," too, but the focus is on the beginning or ending itself---or both. We might seen both the beginning and ending of something in the same shot.
Here are some examples:
Note how all the above examples didn't need to use words like "started (to roll) / started rolling," began, finished, stopped, ended, paused, resumed, concluded, etc. Words like these can be very clarifying but often aren't needed. And if you can leave them out it makes writing more concise and helps the reader to focus on what really matters to the story.
Notice how, unlike with statives, there's more of a feeling of "something actually happened." Importantly, nonstatives are what actually move time forward in a narrative; they're sort of the foreground. And, statives are sort of the background.
You can sometimes pile on multiple paragraphs of statives (of say "description" or inner thought; more on these later) and the reader will mostly happily and automatically assume either minimal or (almost) no time has passed at all in the "outside world" or that time has passed but nothing interesting has happened or that characters and events are continuing on the trajectory where we last left them. We can even help, refresh or affirm this interpretation by mixing in phrases like these:
Here are other variations:
Or maybe the point-of-view character themselves is walking along lost in thought: [point-of-view character is lost in thought] She [the point of view character] passed another statue. [point-of-view character is lost in thought some more]
As a (still important) aside---in this section, as we've implicitly been focusing mostly on lexical aspect, that is, aspect inherent in the meaning of words themselves. But, there is also grammatical aspect. One example of this is the difference between sort of "-ed" forms and "-ing" forms in english. Briefly consider in present and past tense:
Note how the meanings of these, except for the tense, are mostly equivalent. (Again if something seems weird about "drove," we're almost to that.) The "-ed" form is maybe a bit cleaner than the "-ing" form.
But, if we want explicit simultaneity, that is we want to emphasize simultaneity, we need to use an "-ed" plus an "-ing" or two "ings." Here's some examples:
If one verb is "-ing" and the other is "-ed," then the "-ing" verb is sort of the frame in which the the other verb is happening.
Anyway, back to the main point---similar to how statives can overlap with each other (and by default do), nonstatives by default happen one after each other and don't overlap. But this non-overlap can be cancelled with adverbs and prepositional phrases and so on.
Further, nonstatives overlap with statives. We saw this above:
"Walked" is stative and "jumped" is arguably nonstative beginning aspect. Now, we could imagine that "they" stopped abruptly when the dog jumped out in front of them, so the jumping canceled the walking state, but the author might not even explicitly mention that. They author might immediately write "They started running" or something like that. So the interaction between statives and nonstatives sort of lets us avoid specifying lots of unimportant details about the beginnings and endings of states. (As a side note, if instead it was "They were walking down the street", it would be less likely for a reader to assume that "A dog jumped out" immediately cancels their walking because of the "-ing" form creating a sort of frame.)
["The Logic of Narratives" is a good place to go for more on all the above and may be the very origin of some of the assertions, here.]
For simplicity, I've been implicitly affirming that "lexical aspect" is unambiguous, but it's most definitely not.
There is at least "beginning-middle" ambiguity as well as "middle-end" ambiguity. (These ambiguities are called a few different and overlapping things, so they're hard to search for in the literature, if you're looking for references.)
For example:
Note how we might disambiguate beginning-middle and middle-ending. We could add an adverb or a preposition. "They sat down" is clarifying; it makes it more clear that they were previously standing. One could also, perhaps less elegantly, change the grammatical aspect to "-ing," as in "They were sitting" to get the stative interpretation. But there's no way to get an unambiguous grammatical aspect for the beginning interpretation. An similarly or even more elegant way to get the right interpretation is to just do it with context. If in the next sentence or next few sentences the only compatible interpretation in context is the one you want, that they sat down or that they've been sitting, then that handles it just fine, too.
It can be helpful to pick the aspect you want, so you yourself aren't confused, and then make sure context clarifies or disambiguates or you can add a preposition or something immediately to make the reader's interpretation more crisp (and that clarity on your side can also make editing and revising easier, too).
For completeness, there is also a continuous / discontinuous ambiguity. If you say, "They had been sitting" (past in past, to be discussed later) or "They put the book on the table" (example from wikipedia), we don't immediately know if they're still sitting or if the book is still there. There's maybe not even a good default interpretation, depending. So whether this is in text or in dialogue, it can be helpful to keep on eye on this ambiguity as to whether you want to clarify it or whether context quickly clarifies it or it doesn't matter to the story.
Again, these ambiguities sort of inhere (or not), first-pass in a vacuum, in the meanings of the verbs, which is why it's sort of more lexical aspectual ambiguity as opposed to grammatical aspectual ambiguity.
Sometimes the ambiguity is very slight or it doesn't matter! Sometimes it lends a sense of "activity" or "dynamism" to a scene if you don't clarify it. Or often context will almost automatically clarify things.
In any case one can develop sensitivity to these sorts of ambiguities, which are influenced by word/verb choice and context, and make a deliberate, controlled choice as to whether to leave it or to clarify / cancel it. And then craft becomes control, rigor, and style.
It's worth noting that the adverb "now" is sort of special. We said earlier that states, even barely-overlapping or non-overlapping sequential states, usually don't have a feeling of "updating story time." But, if we need to, because of how events are unfolding or lack thereof, we can use the adverb "now" to "cast," "coerce," or "force" a "middle aspect" to sort of update story time:
Sometimes there's sort of a cause and effect gap or it's not clear how "glue states" sort of overlap or frame nonstative beginnings and endings, or there's a new "entrant" into the ongoing flow of cause and effect.
It can be helpful to signal to the reader that there's been some gappiness or that something somehow "fully new to the scene" is happening that isn't a response, reaction, or effect or something earlier.
This can sometimes be done with words or phrases like the below:
These can be combined. It's hard to use "suddenly" well but it actually means almost the same thing as "then."
Below we're going to present and discuss a more refined model of (fictional) mind and person (of "character"), but we'll present a simpler one here, which is probably good enough for many purposes and can serve as scaffolding at the very least.
So, here's the model. It says that a character, especially a point of view character, can only "do" these four things:
Actions are sort of "active" and "deliberate" and "doings" but they don't necessarily have to be (self-)reflective. It's debatable as to whether a character has to be directly, immediately aware of it for it to be an action.
Behaviors and operations are sort of "passive," more "happenings." A character doesn't have to be (directly) aware of them while they're happenings. They can be conscious and reflected upon but they can also be unreflected upon. It's debatable as to whether they can ever be inaccessible in principle, as in, even if a character isn't aware of a behavior or operation, they perhaps in some sense always could be, as long as they weren't in some sort of altered state. Sleeping might count as altered. Drugs or (fictional) mind control count.
Sensory and interoceptive experiencing can be both action and passive as well.
Note that the same physical or mental thing can potentially have a "handoff" between active and passive. We can deliberately step forward and then not have to pay attention to further walking. We can find ourselves already starting to walk or find ourselves clenching a fist and then deliberately at least try to stop, depending on our emotional state and so on.
The same words can be ambiguous as to whether something is active or passive (or even "inner" versus "outer." And it can be helpful to know exactly which you intend and to clarify with adverbs, prepositions, syntactic choices, and context.
This is helpful because clear writing tends to have a clear cause and effect sequence between something like the below:
The above was sketched out very hastily. Sometimes almost all of this will be left implicit or steps will be skipped if fictional external circumstances are fast and demanding.
In any case, relatively crisp and ambiguous interplay between cause and effect, doings and happenings, inner and outer, can lead to clear and distinct characterization, clear and distinct action, and writing that flows cleanly and clearly.
As a side note, we only have direct access to mental actions and operations for the point-of-view character (and, too, only for some points of view, and assuming we're not using an omniscient point of view). Otherwise, the point-of-view character is sometimes / usually assuming things about other characters' state, mental operations, mental behavior with varying degrees of specificity and probability, based on non-pov characters external or otherwise apparent behavior (excepting fictional devices like mindreading and so on). And, this will be reflected in the pov characters mental actions and operations.
It's important to note, too, that the details of what's "inner," "outer," "active," "passive," etc., and how that's reflected in syntax, grammar, and word choice, will be affected by you, the author / writer's felt and understood models of mind and everything, as well as the point of view character's models of mind and everything. So the details, and whether you discard all or parts of this basic model, here, or have your own nuances, as well as how your character understands themselves and sees the world and other people, will deeply affect style and characterization and authorial voice and character voice. And that's great!
Now, let's make this more concrete with actual examples.
[so we maybe have to add one more axis... so here's all the axes that we're balancing...]
HERETODO
A narrative mode, as I'm using the phrase, is sort of the general commitments (if any) you make for a particular piece of work that are reflected in their instantiation throughout the work.
Here's a commitment or rule which we'll be playing with:
\1) "Only describe or refer to what a point of view character is conscious of at any given time."
(As a concrete example, if we adhere to (1) above, we won't write things like, "He was unconscious, now; he was deep asleep.")
And here's another:
\2) "No authorial intrusions."
Or:
\3) "Describe things only in temporal order."
Or:
\4) Refer to something using an intension that the point-of-view character would use or endorse.
(An example of this rule would be using "the immature Terran humanoid" if the point-of-view character was, say, an alien and, say, "the baby" or "[baby] Sara" or "my daughter" if the point-of-view character was a human or the (human) baby's (human) mother. These are sometimes referred to as "epithets, and some people try to use them very sparingly, using proper nouns and especially pronouns as much as possible.)
Of note, plenty of authors don't use the above rules, and that's okay!
Another way of putting all this that "You can just make rules." And, those rules are productive when exercising those rules makes writing easier, faster, and stylistically more consistent. So, if you're "rigorous" then you adhere to those commitments throughout a piece (and if you do break "your rules" you do so consciously and deliberately to produce an effect). Finally, it's important to note that some narratives modes are more popular than others, or easier for readers to consume, or more commercially successful.
Say there's "consciousness."
Say consciousness can be "inner" or "mental" and "outer" or "physical."
So one way to divide consciousness is like this:
Say that everything one can be conscious of is "experience," but we'll more specifically use "consciousness" for "everything" and more specifically use "experience" for non-conceptual experience.
Actually, I'll give all the divisions first and then explain them better. So, here's another way to divide consciousness:
non-conceptual experience
non-conceptual/pre-conceptual/proto-conceptual knowing
non-conceptual peripheral attention
non-conceptual focal attention
conceptual awareness
conceptual knowing
conceptual focal attention
(Here's with some examples:)
sussuration of the air conditioner, drone and tone and prosody of professor speaking without understanding the words
(And if wan't to put the two divisions together:)
~~Consciousness (can be “inner” and “outer”): experience—non-conceptual awareness—conceptual, unattended knowing—the conceptual experience as such attention—can be placed on experience or awareness~~
Abrusán, Márta. "The spectrum of perspective shift: protagonist projection versus free indirect discourse." Linguistics and Philosophy 44 (2021): 839-873.
Adams, Kenn. How to improvise a full-length play: The art of spontaneous theater. Simon and Schuster, 2010.
Asher, Nicholas, and Alex Lascarides. "Bridging." Journal of Semantics 15.1 (1998): 83-113.
Banfield, Ann. "Reflective and non-reflective consciousness in the language of fiction." Poetics today 2.2 (1981): 61-76.
Bickham, Jack. Elements of fiction writing-scene & structure. Penguin, 1999.
Clark, Herbert H. "Bridging." Theoretical issues in natural language processing. 1975.
Crystalwizard and Don Webb. Camera, Action: Complex Scenes. http://www.bewilderingstories.com/issue235/cc_complex_scenes.html [Last accessed: 2024-05-09]
https://www.google.com/search?q=complement+clause [Last accessed: 2024-05-08]
https://www.google.com/search?q=complementizer [Last accessed: 2024-05-08]
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22finite%22+%22infinite%22+OR+%22infinitive%22+%22non-finite%22+OR+%22nonfinite%22+clause [Last accessed: 2024-05-08]
Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey Pullum (Eds.). The Cambridge grammar of the English language (Reprint of 2002 Ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Mercurio, Jim. The Craft of Scene Writing: Beat by Beat to a Better Script. Quill Driver Books, 2019.
Nünning, Ansgar. "‘With the Benefit of Hindsight’: Features and Functions of Turning Points as a Narratological Concept and as a Way of Self-Making." Turning points: Concepts and narratives of change in literature and other media (2012): 31-58.
Hardy, Janice. Understanding Show, Don't Tell (and Really Getting It): Learn how to Find--and Fix--told Prose in Your Writing. Janice Hardy, 2016.
Lee, EunHee. "The logic of narratives." The Logic of Narratives. Brill, 2020.
McGregor, William B. "Complementation as interpersonal grammar." Word 59.1-2 (2008): 25-53.
Mélac, Eric. "The grammaticalization of evidentiality in English." English Language & Linguistics 26.2 (2022): 331-359. [google scholar]
Murray, Sarah E. "Varieties of update." Semantics and Pragmatics 7 (2014): 2-1. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.7.2 [google scholar]
Palmer, Alan. Fictional minds. U of Nebraska Press, 2004.
Proust, Joëlle. "A plea for mental acts." Synthese 129 (2001): 105-128.
Tufte, Virginia. "Artful sentences: Syntax as style." Graphic P (2006).
Vande Kopple, William J. Clear and coherent prose: A functional approach. Pearson Scott Foresman, 1989.
Vedin, Maria. Adverbials as semantic and pragmatic operators: a functional approach to the analysis of English fiction language. Diss. Luleå tekniska universitet, 2002.
Webb, Don. It Beats As It Sweeps As It Cleans. http://www.bewilderingstories.com/issue555/as_ed.html [Last accessed: 2024-05-09]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complement_(linguistics) [Last accessed: 2024-05-08]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect [Last accessed: 2024-05-09]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_attitude [Last accessed: 2024-05-08]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telicity [Last accessed: 2024-05-09]