[B-Greek] Questions about NT verbal aspect
LuisCReyes at aol.com
LuisCReyes at aol.com
Tue Jan 16 20:10:52 EST 2007
Dear Steven,
Thank you for responding and sharing your thoughts. I hope that I am not
drifting too far from the format of this list. I think that I should expand a
little more on the differences that I make between: (a) accidental information
transmission, (b) covert information transmission, and (c) overt information
transmission.
Under (a) accidental information transmission, for example, one may consider
a person’s accent, or his own unique linguistic expressions (his idiolect)
to draw a variety of conclusions. The speaker may unintentionally communicate
that he or she is from a particular region, or that he belongs to a
particular social class, etc. The point is that in accidental information transmission
the speaker does not intend for this information to be noticed. I am also
inclined to say that under this category one can also include (perhaps
partially) unintended subconscious information by use of a grammar (a code). For
example, in South Central Los Angeles, one sometimes hears the use of African
American Vernacular English (AAVE) (a variety formerly known as Black English).
Someone from this area using a particular linguistic/grammatical expression
may want to communicate a particular idea by encoding it in a unique
linguistic from. A hearer, may understand the speaker’s intended meaning (despite the “
awkward” or “ungrammatical” English), but upon hearing the speaker’s
sub-conscious linguistic grammaticalization of a particular concept (assuming we
can even tell whether it was subconscious or not), the hearer may also draw
all sorts of additional conclusions from the speaker’s linguistic expression.
For example, he may conclude that the speaker is uneducated pertaining to
proper modern English usage etc. This information may never have been intended by
the speaker, and he may have never intended his hearers to draw any of these
conclusions based on the structure of his linguistic expression, whether
subconsciously or not.
In (b) covert information transmission, the speaker may include a level of
manipulation or concealment. He may, for example, appear to be more
intelligent than he actually is, or tougher than he actually is etc. He may
intentionally use certain linguistic/grammatical expressions to attempt to pass-off such
notions. However, these things are not meant to be noticed by the hearers.
This would fall under covert information transmission. This involves a speaker’
s intention, but it is not meant to be noticed by the hearers. I don’t think
that verbal aspect would fall under this, unless you can find a text where
the speaker was deliberately manipulating his encoded meaning in the sense of
(b).
In (c) overt information transmission, as noted already, a speaker makes a
genuine attempt at sharing information, and thus intends to convey a certain
message or information. Considering your suggestion of subdividing (c) or
adding a category of (d), I am trying to think of a situation where someone would
intentionally communicate information subconsciously. This almost sounds like
a contradiction of ideas (at least on the face of it); for how can one
intentionally communicate something that he or she is not aware of? Perhaps by
constant intentional conscious repetition of a linguistic structure until it
becomes grammaticalized? Perhaps after a point in time the speaker’s intended
meaning becomes grammaticalized and encoded in the linguistic form. It is
conceivable (at least to me) that in this way at some point a speaker could
intentionally communicate information subconsciously while uttering a linguistic
expression, and perhaps we can categorize this as (d) as you have suggested.
This is possible, but I have some concerns about this.
You mention pragmatics, and pragmatics is certainly critical here, since
from my understanding linguistic communication (based on the code model of
communication) often falls short of communicating the speaker’s intended meaning
(Sperber and Wilson, Relevance, 1986, pps. 1-64). Sperber and Wilson write, “
there is a gap between the semantic representations of sentences and the
thoughts actually communicated by utterances. This gap is filled not by more
coding, but by inference” (ibid, p. 9). This observation is linked to a
distinction between the linguistic lexico/grammatical meaning of a sentence
(semantics), which is recovered by decoding, and a more general process of utterance
interpretation (pragmatics). There is a difference between what the
linguistic/morphological/grammatical structure means, and what the actual speaker’s
intended meaning actually is. A linguist may be interested in what the encoded
linguistic/morphological/grammatical structure means, but what I am interested
in is to know what the speaker actually meant by using that particular
linguistic form, in a particular situation, and for a particular reason. I am not
too interested in what his words mean, as much as I am interested in what he
meant by using those words. However, the speaker’s words may provide a clue as
to what the speaker means, but inference is still needed nonetheless.
Since one’s subconscious use of an encoded
linguistic/morphological/grammatical structure (a code) can fall under (a) (accidental information transfer,
transferring subconscious unintended information) or (d) (transferring
subconscious intended information), then how does one determine whether the
situation is actually (a) or (d) when considering verbal aspect? I think that this is
a critical issue for proponents of verbal aspect theory. My opinion is that
pragmatics is unavoidable, and that insights from Relevance Theory can
actually assist in making such determinations (this is something that I am
researching).
As far as Porter, you indicated that his view on the matter is that verbal
aspect is considered to be a reflection of the original speaker's formulation
of a particular conceptualization. This means that verbal aspect is
considered as a constituent of the speaker’s conceptual representation. I also wonder
how much the notion of verbal aspect is affected by recent insights,
research, and experimentation from lexical pragmatics (Cf. Barsalou, 1982, 1987,
1989, Barsalou & Billman, 1989). This is something I am also researching. From
this perspective concepts have an ad hoc nature to them, and thus, one’s
conceptual formation may change each and every time it is situated in a
particular context. A person’s concept for a particular category may shift and change
by utilizing different knowledge from his LTM, including information from his
episodic memory, which may also be a constituent of conceptualization. I
think this is very important, especially for notions of verbal aspect because, “
Episodic memory makes possible the acquisition and retrieval of information
about specific personal experiences that occur at a particular time and place”
(The Oxford Handbook of Memory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, p.
633). A speaker’s selection of a particular conceptual idea (possibly including
verbal aspect if it is a constituent of episodic memory) may be different
each and every time a particular encoded form is used, despite the fact that it
is the same linguistic/grammatical form used. Barsalou writes:
“Across contexts, a given person’s concept for the same category may
change, utilizing different knowledge from long-term memory, at least to some
extent. . .Concepts are flexible. Rather than existing as a stable set of features
in different people, and in the same person across contexts, a concept
varies widely both between and within individuals” (Barsalou, 1993, 29-30).
There is a great deal of evidence in the memory literature that supports the
notion of flexibility with human concepts. This flexibility indicates that a
concept can vary widely across individuals and occasions. If verbal aspect
is considered to be a reflection of the original speaker's formulation of a
particular conceptualization, then I am certain that this will have a bearing
on how verbal aspect is perceived (at least from a pragmatic perspective).
This in turn may have an impact on the interpretation of verbal aspect as it is
encoded in the use of an utterance. These are things that I am currently
researching. I also think that what you mentioned pertaining to discourse and
verbal aspect is also important (I am aware that there are about three new
books on this, although I have not had the opportunity to read them). I am always
interested in any relevant reading you may suggest. Thank you Steve.
God bless
Luis C. Reyes (mailto:b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org)
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list