[B-Greek] clarification

furuli at online.no furuli at online.no
Wed Jan 28 05:20:12 EST 2004


Dear Jody,

I have a few comments which are somewhat different from other 
comments recently given.

We need to differentiate between three different kinds of time, 
"deictic time", and the two members of the group "non-deictic time", 
namely "event time" and "reference time".
We use deictic time when an event is seen in relation to the deictic 
center (C) (a vantage point which often is speech time). Events 
having past tense come before C, those having  present tense (or 
present reference) occur contemporaneously with C, and events having 
future tense occur after C   Tense represents deictic time.

Aspect represents non-deictic time.  An event which is not 
instantaneous, takes some time, and the time from its beginning to 
its end is called "event time" (ET). In communication, often just a 
part of the event is made visible, and this small (or bigger) part of 
ET that is made visible, is called "reference time" (RT). From 
another point of view we can say that RT intersects ET.  In 1) RT 
intersects ET at the nucleous, which is the imperfective aspect. In 
2) RT intersects ET at the coda - that is the perfective aspect.

1) Liz was reading a book.
2) Liz has read a book.

To compare tense and aspect we can say.

Tense is the relationship between RT and C and represents deictic time.
Aspect is the relationship between RT and E and represents non-deictic time.

In English, aspects are objective, because the perfective aspect 
always signals that the event was terminated at RT, and the 
imperfective aspect signals that the event was not terminated at RT. 
In Greek the aspects are subjective, because we cannot conclude on 
the basis of the aspect used whether an event/state was terminated or 
not at RT. I claim that Greek aspects are very different from their 
english counterparts.

I use the word Aktionsart in a more restricted way than Con does. It 
refers only to the lexical meaning of a word, and typical Aktionsart 
terms are "durative" and "punctiliar". "Semantic meaning" refers to 
characteristics that cannot be cancelled by the context and 
"conversational pragmatic implicature" refers to characteristics that 
can be cancelled or imputed by the context. Aktionsart does not 
represent "semantic meaning," because the Aktionsart meaning can 
change. Words that are marked for dynamicity, durativity, or telicity 
will never loose these characteristics, but words whose default 
interpretation is punctiliar, can have a durative interpretations as 
well.


Characteristics which normally are functions of Aktionsart (the term 
related only to single words as above) and other factors I call 
"procedural characteristics". The combination of factors such as 
whether subject/object are singular/plural or definite/indefinite, 
the nature of adverbials, whether the Aktionsart is punctiliar or 
durative, whether the perfective or imperfective aspect is used, will 
cause different procedural characteristics.

Iterativity is in my system not an Aktionsart but a procedural trait. 
In 3) below, simple past i used, so we know that the action was 
terminated before C, but it is not made visible whether Peter knocked 
once or several times. In 4) an iterative action is described, but 
this conclusion is not based on aspect alone or Aktionsart (which is 
punctiliar) alone, but on the combination of the Aktionsart and the 
imperfective aspect. In 5) we also have an iterative situation, but 
this interpretation is based on the combination of the adverbial and 
the past tense. I have added 6) which most likely should be 
interpreted as habitual (which is the sister of interative events). 
The habitual interpretation of 6) is based on the adverbial, on the 
past tense, but most of all on a knowledge of the world (the 
knowledge that the paper is printed every day).


3) Peter knocked at the door.
4) Peter was knocking at the door.
5) Peter knocked at the door for two minutes.
6) Last year I read the New York Times.

I recommend Mari Broman Olsen (1997) "A Semantic and Pragmatic Model 
of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect". This is the best work regarding 
tense/aspect/Aktionsart of which I am aware (although I disagree with 
Mari that the meaning of aspect is universal).

Best regards

Rolf

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


>All this controversy concerning Porter’s analysis of
>the verb has left me in need of some clarity
>concerning crucial terminology.
>
>Would I be right in thinking the following:
>
>The semantics of a verb tense refers to its entire
>range of meaning, which it brings to given a context?
>Whereas the pragmatics refers to the contextual
>modification that the verb undergoes?
>
>Actionsart is a view of the verb that considers it an
>objectively defined action? Whereas aspect considers
>the verb a subjectively defined action?
>
>Please clarify and feel free to expand.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Jody Barnard.
>




More information about the B-Greek mailing list