[B-Greek] Re: Pluperfect and Frontground
Con Campbell
concampbell at netspace.net.au
Mon Jan 26 12:40:36 EST 2004
The distinction between aspect and procedural characteristics is the same as
that between aspect and Aktionsart, which is the distinction Porter himself
makes - semantics versus pragmatics. Porter accuses Fanning of not making
this distinction clear enough; the irony is that Fanning makes the same
criticism of Porter regarding stative aspect.
You seem to be disagreeing with both Fanning and Porter on the
semantic/pragmatic issue; is this the case? I imagine their answer to your
question would be that the reason aspect regularly affects procedural
characteristics is that semantics affects pragmatics, but not the other way
around.
Con Campbell,
Canberra, Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of Kimmo Huovila
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 4:30 AM
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [B-Greek] Re: Pluperfect and Frontground
On Saturday 24 January 2004 23:51, Con Campbell wrote:
>
> Regarding the stative aspect of the pluperfect... I'm keen to know how
it's
> stative aspect is pragmatically determined; what method is used? For me, I
> am sceptical of the existence of the stative aspect. I know this sounds
> radical, but it is in fact what Fanning implies in his critique of Porter,
> that stativity is an Aktionsart rather than an aspect (JSNTS 80,
pp.49-50).
> A binary aspectual system (perfective/imperfective) is by far the most
> dominant in wider linguistic research, and while this does not prove the
> case, I think the burden to prove it is on those who argue for it in
Greek.
> I am not convinced thus far, and do not think that the presence of three
> verbal stems is enough to assume it either. I talked personally to Ken
McKay
> about the stative aspect (who of course was highly influential to Porter),
> and am still not convinced. I know there are others out there who agree -
> any b-greekers?? - and I am keen to keep talking it through.
I think Fanning did a good job in describing the perfect, but I am not in
full
agreement with his theoretical approach. I do not find it helpful to
separate
procedural character (Aktionsart) from aspect, since they are dealing with
the same semantic differences and since these differences may be coded
either
lexically or grammatically. In other words, no strict distinction between
the
two seems plausible. Fanning (JSNTS 80, p. 50, footnote 1) mentions that he
wants to see aspect consistently as viewpoint rather than procedural
character. If this is so, how come aspect consistently changes the
procedural
character, as so amply demonstrated by his dissertation? Is it not better to
see them as nested aspects? Also, if aspect is just a viewpoint, how come it
regularly affects truth conditions? Not accepting his distinction between
procedural character and aspect undermines Fanning's critique of Porter at
this point.
Kimmo Huovila
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list