Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:36:27.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aspect beyond time: Introduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2020

ASTRID DE WIT Open the ORCID record for ASTRID DE WIT [Opens in a new window]  and
FRANK BRISARD Open the ORCID record for FRANK BRISARD [Opens in a new window]
ASTRID DE WIT*
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
FRANK BRISARD*
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
*
Author’s address: Department of Linguistics, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000Antwerp, Belgiumastrid.dewit@uantwerpen.be
Author’s address: frank.brisard@uantwerpen.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The collection of papers presented in this special issue addresses the non-temporal import of aspectual constructions, in conventional and less conventional contexts and expression modes. In this introduction, we outline the notions of lexical and grammatical aspect, and how they are traditionally analyzed in temporal accounts, which focus on situations’ temporal constituency, duration, and limitation in time. This serves to clarify relevant notions for those readers who are less familiar with the domain (admittedly riddled with terminological confusion) and thus explicate some of the underlying tenets of existing (temporal) accounts, which the papers in this special issue call into question. This questioning, alongside insights coming from the discussion of various non-canonical constructions/uses in different languages and from different theoretical perspectives, promises an alternative approach to aspect, which goes beyond time.

Keywords

aspectepistemic modalityevidentialitynon-temporal uses
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 56 , Issue 3: Aspect beyond time , 01 August 2020 , pp. 459 - 477
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We should like to thank Professor Helen de Hoop and Dr Ewa Jaworska for their valued guidance in the course of the production of this special issue, as well as for the patience they exhibited in the process. We are furthermore very much indebted to the reviewers of the individual contributions to this special issue for their thorough feedback on different drafts of the papers. We also wish to thank all participants (speakers, discussants, and interested parties) who contributed to the success of our workshop. Special thanks to Professor Laura Michaelis for being the main driving force behind the organization of the workshop. Glossing abbreviations follow the Leipzig Glossing Rules.

References

Adamczewski, Henri. 1978. BE+ING dans la grammaire de l’anglais contemporain. Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Altshuler, Daniel. 2016. Events, states and times: An essay on narrative discourse in English. Warsaw & Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altshuler, Daniel. Forthcoming. Tense and temporal adverbs (‘I learned last week that there would now be an earthquake’). In Matthewson, Lisa, Meier, Cécile, Rullman, Hotze & Zimmermann, Thomas Ede (eds.), The Blackwell companion to semantics. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
Anthonissen, Lynn, De Wit, Astrid & Mortelmans, Tanja. 2019. (Inter)subjective uses of the Dutch progressive constructions. Linguistics 57, 1111–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bache, Carl. 1995. The study of aspect, tense and action: Toward a theory of the semantics of grammatical categories. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bar-El, Leora. 2015. Documenting and classifying aspectual classes across languages. In Bochnak, M. Ryan & Matthewson, Lisa (eds.), Methodologies in semantic fieldwork, 75–109. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertinetto, Pier Marco. On nominal tense. Linguistic Typology, https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2020-2033. Published online by De Gruyter Mouton, 3 March 2020.Google Scholar
Bertinetto, Pier Marco & Delfitto, Dennis. 2000. Aspect vs. actionality: Why they should be kept apart. In Dahl, Östen (ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe, 189–226. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Breu, Walter. 1994. Interactions between lexical, temporal and aspectual meanings. Studies in Language 18, 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bril, Isabelle(ed.). 2010. Clause linking and clause hierarchy: Syntax and pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brisard, Frank. 2010. Aspects of virtuality in the meaning of the French imparfait. Linguistics 48, 487–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brisard, Frank. Forthcoming. Grounding. In Taylor, John R. & Wen, Xu (eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Celle, Agnès & Smith, Nicholas. 2010. Beyond aspect: Will be -ing and shall be -ing. English Language and Linguistics 14, 239–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, Sarah & Timberlake, Alan. 1985. Tense, aspect and mood. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Grammatical categories and the lexicon, vol. 3: Language typology and syntactic description, 202–258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crane, Thera, Nichols, Johanna & Persohn, Bastian. 2019. A cross-linguistic perspective on the role of the lexicon in actionality. Presented in a workshop organized at ALT 2019, University of Pavia.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
de Swart, Henriëtte. 1998. Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16, 347–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Wit, Astrid. 2017a. The expression of mirativity through aspectual constructions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15, 385–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Wit, Astrid. 2017b. The present perfective paradox across languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Wit, Astrid. 2018. The semantics of the simple tenses and full-verb inversion in English: A story of shared epistemic schemas. Constructions and Frames 10.2, 210–233. [Special issue on asymmetries and mismatches in Construction Grammar]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Wit, Astrid & Brisard, Frank. 2014. A Cognitive Grammar account of the semantics of the English present progressive. Journal of Linguistics 50, 49–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Wit, Astrid, Brisard, Frank & Meeuwis, Michael. 2018. The epistemic import of aspectual constructions: The case of performatives. Language and Cognition 10, 234–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Wit, Astrid, Patard, Adeline & Brisard, Frank. 2013. A contrastive analysis of the present progressive in French and English. Studies in Language 37, 846–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 3, 371–384.Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse. 1995. The effect of temporal adverbials on (a)telicity and (un)boundedness. In Bertinetto, Pier Marco, Bianchi, Valentina, Higginbotham, James & Squartini, Mario (eds.), Temporal reference, aspect and actionality, vol. 1: Semantic and syntactic perspectives, 43–53. Torino: Rosenberg & Sallier.Google Scholar
Dickey, Stephen M. 2000. Parameters of Slavic aspect: A cognitive approach. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Dickey, Stephen M. 2016. Lexical and grammatical aspect. In Riemer, Nick (ed.), Routledge handbook of semantics, 338–353. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C.1997. The theory of Functional Grammar, vol. 1: The structure of the clause, 2nd revised edn., edited by Kees Hengeveld. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebert, Karen H. 1995. Ambiguous perfect-progressive forms across languages. In Bertinetto, Pier Marco, Bianchi, Valentina, Dahl, Östen & Squartini, Mario (eds.), Temporal reference, aspect and actionality, vol. 2: Typological perspectives, 185–203. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Firestone, Homer L. 1965. Description and classification of Sirionó. London: Mouton.Google Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne. 1989. Temporal distance: A basic linguistic metaphor. Studies in Language 13, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne. 1995. Imperfective and irrealis. In Bybee, Joan & Fleischman, Suzanne (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse, 519–551. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortuin, Egbert L. J. 2019. Universality and language-dependency of tense and aspect: Performatives from a crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology 23, 1–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
François, Alexandre. 2010. Pragmatic demotion and clause dependency: On two atypical subordinating strategies in Lo-Toga and Hiw (Torres, Vanuatu). In Bril (ed.), 499–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grevisse, Maurice. 1986. Le bon usage: Grammaire française, 12th edn., revised by André Goosse. Paris: Duculot.Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom. 2003. Present progressive vis-à-vis predication focus in Bantu: A verbal category between semantics and pragmatics. Studies in Language 27, 323–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hommerberg, Charlotte & Paradis, Carita. 2014. Constructing credibility through representations in the discourse of wine: Evidentiality, temporality and epistemic control. In Glynn, Dylan & Sjölin, Mette (eds.), Subjectivity and epistemicity: Corpus, discourse, and literary approaches to stance, 211–238. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1979. Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In Givón, Talmy (ed.), Discourse and syntax, 213–241. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1982. Aspect between discourse and grammar. In Hopper, Paul J. (ed.), Tense–aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics, 3–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. The verb. In Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey K. Pullum et al., The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 71–212. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 231–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israeli, Alina. 2001. The choice of aspect in Russian verbs of communication: Pragmatic contract. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 9, 49–98.Google Scholar
James, Deborah. 1982. Past tense and the hypothetical: A cross-linguistic study. Studies in Language 6, 375–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1931. A modern English grammar on historical principles, vol. 4. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 2018. Turkic indirectivity. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality, 510–524. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Reyle, Uwe. 1993. From discourse to logic: Introduction to model theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and Discourse Representation Theory, vol. 1. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Sag, Ivan A. & Szabolcsi, Anna (eds.), Lexical matters, 29–53. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Rothstein, Susan (ed.), Events and grammar, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1970. Tense and its relation to participants. Language 46, 838–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. Meaning and the English verb. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Mansouri, Aous A.2016. Stative and stativizing constructions in Arabic news reports: A corpus-based study. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado Boulder.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 1996. On the use and meaning of already. Linguistics and Philosophy 19, 477–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 1998. Aspectual grammar and past-time reference. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2004. Type shifting in Construction Grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15, 1–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2011. Stative by construction. Linguistics 49, 1359–1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel & Sadler, Louisa. 2004. Tense beyond the verb: Encoding clausal tense/aspect/mood on nominal dependents. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22, 597–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1984. Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 7, 243–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patard, Adeline. 2011. The modal uses of the English simple past and the French imparfait: When temporality conveys modality. In Patard, Adeline & Brisard, Frank (eds.), Cognitive approaches to tense, aspect, and epistemic modality, 279–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patard, Adeline. 2014. When tense and aspect convey modality: Reflections on the modal uses of past tenses in Romance and Germanic languages. Journal of Pragmatics 71, 69–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portner, Paul. 1998. The progressive in modal semantics. Language 74, 760–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritz, Marie-Eve. 2012. Perfect tense and aspect. In Binnick, Robert I. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect, 881–907. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Robert, Stéphane. 2010. Clause chaining and conjugations in Wolof. In Bril (ed.), 469–498.Google Scholar
Rydén, Mats. 1997. On the panchronic core meaning of the English progressive. In Nevalainen, Terttu & Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.), To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen, 419–429. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 1991. Aspect and aktionsart: A reconciliation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 6, 31–45.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 2002. Review article. Recent activity in the theory of aspect: Accomplishments, achievements, or just non-progressive state. Linguistic Typology 6, 199–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan & Aksu, Ayhan. 1982. Tense, aspect, modality, and more in Turkish evidentials. In Hopper, Paul (ed.), Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics, 185–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1997. The parameter of aspect, 2nd edn.Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tatevosov, Sergej. 2002. The parameter of actionality. Linguistic Typology 6, 317–401.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1957/1967. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66, 143–160. Reprinted in Zeno Vendler. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy, 97–121. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk J. 1993. A theory of aspectuality: The interaction between temporal and atemporal structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1982. Why can you Have a Drink when you can’t *Have an Eat? Language 58, 753–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Christopher. 2002. Non-progressive and progressive aspect in English. Fasano: Schena editore.Google Scholar
Xiao, Richard & McEnery, Tony. 2004. Aspect in Mandarin Chinese: A corpus-based study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar