[B-Greek] Questions about verbal aspect.
LuisCReyes at aol.com
LuisCReyes at aol.com
Thu Jul 5 16:09:29 EDT 2007
There is a notion that I have often encountered when reading literature on
NT verbal aspect. This notion has bothered me because I think that it is
misleading. However, I want to make sure that I understand what some writers are
saying pertaining to verbal aspect. The idea (as I understand it) has to do
with the general notion that a “speaker’s viewpoint” can be decoded from the
linguistic form of verbal morphology.
For instance, Porter writes, “In Greek, verbal aspect is defined as a
semantic (meaning) category by which a speaker or writer gramaticalizes (i.e.
represents a meaning by a choice of a word-form) a perspective on an action by the
selection of a particular tense-form in the verbal system” (Porter, Idioms,
20-21, emphasis mine). Elsewhere Porter elaborates about this “perspective of
an action” to mean “the author’s reasoned subjective choice of conception of
a process” (Porter, Verbal Aspect, p. 88, emphasis mine. I leave out for now
the issue of “reasoned subjective choice”). Fanning also understands NT
Greek verbal aspect in a similar manner. He writes that verbal aspect, “. . . is
that category in the grammar of the verb which reflects the focus or
viewpoint of the speaker in regard to the action or condition which the verb
describes. . .To be more specific, aspect is concerned with the speaker’s viewpoint
concerning the action . . .” (Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek,
p. 84-85, emphasis mine). According to McKay, aspect in NT Greek, “is that
category of the verb system by means of which an author (or speaker) shows how
he views each event or activity he mentions in relation to its context”
(McKay, Greek Grammar, p. 44). This is a notion that seems to be accepted by
other NT scholars.
The problem that I see is that such ideologies apparently presuppose and
assume that there is a necessary connection between perceived aspectual nuances
decoded from linguistic verbal morphology, and the speaker’s actual mental
conceptualization of a viewpoint or event. Is anyone aware of any
psycholinguistic studies or experimental research that can support such a view? Is this in
fact what these writers believe about verbal aspect, or have I misunderstood
them?
It appears to me that people are under the impression that one can extract
the “speaker’s viewpoint” from verbal morphology. I think that instead of
referring to notions that speak about decoding “a speaker’s viewpoint” from
linguistic verbal morphology (which should actually be categorized in the realm
of pragmatics), perhaps it is more appropriate to say that linguistic verbal
aspect conveys a semantic viewpoint (not necessarily the speaker’s viewpoint)
that may be recovered from the language that the speaker used. From my
understanding, it is one thing to distinguish between what the speaker’s
linguistic morphology says (semantics), and quite another thing to attempt to obtain
a resemblance with what the speaker actually means, or conceptually thinks
pertaining to a particular viewpoint (pragmatics). As it stands, it appears to
me that people are under the impression that the speaker's conceptual
viewpoint is necessarily decoded from linguistic verbal morphology in situations
where a perceived aspectual nuance is linguistically detected. Can anyone lead me
to any recent discussions or studies on this issue?
Thank You,
Luis Reyes
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list