toward a definition of Verbal Apect
Jonathan Robie
jonathan.robie at datadirect-technologies.com
Sun Nov 3 18:58:22 EST 2002
Hi Mark,
Here are some definitions from "The Concise Oxford Dictionary of
Linguistics, Oxford University Press". These are pretty much the way I use
the terms. Personally, I agree with the scholars who argue that aspect and
Aktionsart are not separate.
Aktionsart (http://www.xrefer.com/entry/570433):
>The lexical class to which a verb belongs by virtue of the type of
>process, state, etc. that it denotes. E.g. walking is an activity;
>therefore walk is an 'activity verb'. Knowing something is a state of
>mind; therefore know is lexically stative.
>
>The German term means 'kind of action'; sometimes replaced in English by
>'aspectual character', 'aspectual value', or 'semantic value'. Aktionsart
>is linked to aspect, from which some scholars would argue that it is not
>separate.
aspect (http://www.xrefer.com/entry/570563):
>General term, originally of specialists in Slavic languages, for verbal
>categories that distinguish the status of events, etc. in relation to
>specific periods of time, as opposed to their simple location in the
>present, past, or future. E.g. I am reading your paper means that the
>reading is in progress over a period that includes the moment of speaking:
>am reading is therefore present in tense but progressive (or continuous)
>in aspect. I have read your paper means that, at the moment of speaking,
>the reading has been completed: it is therefore present in tense but
>perfect in aspect.
>
>Aspectual categories are very varied, and since both tense and aspect are
>defined by reference to time, a clear distinction, where it exists, will
>usually be drawn by formal criteria. It is also hard to separate aspects
>marked by inflections or auxiliaries from the Aktionsart or inherent
>lexical properties of verbs. Hence the term is commonly extended to
>include these and, effectively, any distinction that does not clearly fall
>under tense or mood.
>
>For other individual aspects see aorist; durative; habitual; imperfective;
>inchoative; iterative; punctual.
Now to your definitions:
At 10:39 PM 11/3/2002 +0000, Mark Wilson wrote:
>
>Aspect:
>
>The unaffected meaning, while Aktionsart is aspect in combination
>with lexical, grammatical, or contextual features.... Greek has
>essentially three aspects or types of action: internal, external,
>and perfectice-stative.
>
>(GGBB, pg. 499...500).
I find this definition very confusing - it seems to confuse Aktionsart with
the means by which Aktionsart is grammaticalized in the Greek language.
When it talks about lexical Aktionsart, I assume that he means that there
are classes of verbs that convey time in particular ways. Vendlar has
classified verbs into four classes, which are described in
http://tristram.let.uu.nl/UiL-OTS/Lexicon/:
(i) States: Socrates is mortal, She is in danger,
He loves potatoes
(ii) Activities: John walked miles and miles,
She drove him safely
(iii) Accomplishments: John walked home, She ate
a sandwich
(iv) Achievements: She reached the top, He won
the race
I know these categories as Aspectual classes, so I find it confusing when
GGBB implies that aspect does not take the lexemes into account. When I
read this section of GGBB years ago, I found it very confusing, because the
definitions are different from what I know from other settings. There may
be a system that corresponds to what GGBB describes here, but it is not
described clearly in this book, and I haven't run across it elsewhere.
Buist Fanning and Mari Olsen have each developed models which state
precisely which properties of verbs determine lexical aspect. Olsen says
that lexical aspect is determined by three features:
1. "Telicity" if a verb is telic, it has a goal towards which it
aims. I like to call telic verbs "Goal-oriented verbs".
2. "Dynamicity" if a verb is dynamic, it involves change. I like to
call dynamic verbs "Change verbs".
3. "Durativity" if a verb is durative, it occupies a period of time.
I like to call durative verbs "Duration verbs".
A careful analysis of aspect in NT Greek would have to take the aspectual
classes of the verbs into account. I cetainly didn't do that in my postings
earlier this week - it's a lot of work!
Mark wrote:
>With another author, we have this:
>
>In Greek there are three aspects:
>
>The CONTINUOUS aspect means that the action of the verb is thought
>of as an ongoing process.
>
>The UNDEFINED aspect means that the action of the verb is thought
>of as a simple event, without commenting on whether or not it is a
>process.... The UNDEFINED aspect is the absence of any specific aspect.
>
>The PERFECT aspect describes an action that was brought to completion
>but has effects carrying into the present.
>
>Can someone help me understand the logic/reason of defining aspect
>as UNDEFINED? How can there be an absence of aspect? This seems to
>imply that aspect must have some association with verbal velocity,
>that there must be some "movement" for there to be aspect.
Different systems use different vocabulary to say the same. Those who argue
that the Aorist does not convey aspect may say that it's aspect is
undefined, or simply say that it is unmarked for aspect. I find the latter
clearer.
I have read some grammars that say that the Aorist does not convey tense,
and then say that the aspect it conveys is undefined. Strangely, these
grammars do not seem to simply say that they believe the Aorist conveys
neither tense nor aspect. If they are right, then I wonder what the Aorist
does convey.
Jonathan
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list