Aspect and the count/mass distinction

Langacker proposes that the perfective/imperfective distinction can be modelled in the same terms as the count/mass distinction. In other words, the aspectual distinction relates to the nature of the component parts of the PROCESS, and to the presence or absence of bounding. Of course, aspect relates to bounding in TIME rather than bounding in SPACE. Langacker summarises this idea in the following way:

The component states of a process (each profiling a relation) are analogous to the component entities constituting the region profiled by a noun. For a process, time is the primary domain with respect to which the presence vs. absence of bounding is determined. (Langacker 2002: 87)

The diagrams in Figure 18.2 represent Langacker’s model of aspect. The box represents the scope of predication. A perfective event (Figure 18.2(a)) is bounded within this scope and involves internal change which is represented by a squiggly line. In contrast, an imperfective event (Figure 18.2(b)) is unbounded and does not involve internal change, remaining constant both within and beyond the scope of predication. This is represented by a straight line. The arrow represents the passage of time.

Perfective

 The perfective PROCESS is likened to a count noun in that both are bounded and in that both are replicable. For count nouns, replicability gives rise to pluralisation. For perfective processes, replicability can give rise to iterative aspect. This is illustrated by (29a). Example (29b) shows that the imperfective PROCESS is incompatible with an iterative interpretation.

The incompatibility of a perfective PROCESS with the simple present tense is explained by Langacker’s (2002: 89) definition of tense: in the case of present tense, a ‘full instantiation of the profiled process occurs and precisely coincides with the time of speaking.’ In the case of past tense, a ‘full instantiation of the profiled process occurs prior to the time of speaking.’ As we have seen, a perfective PROCESS is bounded, which means that a full instantiation includes the beginning and end points of the PROCESS. This explains why perfective PROCESSES are typically incompatible with the simple present which encodes an event coextensive with the moment of speaking: it is not usually possible for all the distinct subparts of a perfective PROCESS to coincide with the moment of speaking. Furthermore, because perfective PROCESSES involve internal change and therefore do not consist of identical subparts, a single ‘moment’ in the PROCESS cannot serve as a representation of the PROCESS as a whole. Punctual events represent an exception to this generalisation: verbs like flash, sneeze or blink encode bounded events that are over almost as soon as they have begun, which explains why they can be modified by temporal expressions that pinpoint a moment in time (e.g. Lily sneezed at midnight). Performative verbs like promise or declare also represent an exception to this generalisation: while perfective and therefore bounded, the act of promising or declaring is instantaneous (punctual) and can therefore coincide with the moment of speaking. This explains why performatives are licensed in the simple present. As Taylor (2002: 401) observes, bounded processes that are not punctual can be described as extended: these are compatible with temporal expressions that express a bounded period of time (e.g. George built a canoe in two weeks).

We saw above that there are other contexts in which the simple present is licensed for perfectives, but it is striking that these contexts require a ‘special’ interpretation to license the use of the simple present: as we saw in example (16), the simple present can be used to refer to the imminent future or the past, and can also give rise to a habitual interpretation. In Cognitive Grammar, these ‘special’ interpretations are a matter of construal. Langacker argues that the imminent future use of the simple present situates the whole bounded event at some point in the future, preserving its bounded nature, but that the present tense emphasises the planned status of the future event, which remains constant through time. He further argues that a habitual reading construes a PROCESS as constant through time and thus imperfective, while the historical present construes a past (bounded) event as though it were happening in the present.

 Recalling Vendler’s situation type taxonomy (Table 18.3), it is clear that the perfective PROCESS is necessarily telic, because bounded events entail an end point, and necessarily dynamic, because perfective PROCESSES involve internal change. While some perfective processes (e.g. sneeze) are punctual, others are extended or ‘durative’ (e.g. build). This means that Langacker’s perfective aspect corresponds to achievement (punctual) and accomplishment (dura tive) in Vendler’s system.

Imperfective

 The imperfective PROCESS is likened to a mass noun, because in the same way that the component parts of a mass noun are homogeneous, the component states of a prototypical imperfective PROCESS are identical. Furthermore, in the same way that a mass noun is expansible or contractible, any given subpart of an imperfective PROCESS is still an instance of that PROCESS. This explains why a prototypical imperfective PROCESS is compatible with the simple present, because a subpart of the PROCESS that is coextensive with the moment of speak ing can serve as a representation of the PROCESS as a whole. As we saw in Chapter 15, this follows directly from the property of homogeneity. This is illustrated by (30a). Unlike the perfective, the prototypical imperfective PROCESS is incompatible with the progressive, because the function of the progressive is to construe an event as imperfective. It is therefore redundant to mark an imperfective process as progressive (although see Taylor 2002: 404 for further discussion of this point). This is illustrated by example (29b).

As we saw earlier (section 18.2), the inflectional -ing morpheme derives an ATEMPORAL RELATION from a PROCESS. This explains why progressive participles of imperfective PROCESSES are licensed in adverbial clauses (31a), despite the fact that an imperfective PROCESS cannot occur in the progressive (31b). This is because the progressive auxiliary be imposes a PROCESS reading on the ATEMPORAL RELATION.

Recalling Vendler’s situation type aspect system once more (Table 18.3), it is clear that Langacker’s imperfective PROCESS is atelic, because unbounded processes do not specify an inherent endpoint. The imperfective PROCESS is also necessarily durative, since it is in the nature of an unbounded PROCESS that it endures across time. As we have seen, the prototypical imperfective PROCESS is the stative PROCESS, which involves no internal change (e.g. resemble, know, have). This corresponds to Vendler’s state. Taylor (2002: 402) also suggests that activities can be classified as a type of imperfective PROCESS. Although these do involve internal change (e.g. Lily’s eyes sparkled) and are therefore dynamic, activities are durative and atelic, hence unbounded. Unlike states, activities are compatible with the progressive (e.g. Lily’s eyes were sparkling). Figure 18.3 summarises the interaction of Langacker’s aspectual system with the four situation types identified by Vendler.

اخر الاخبار

اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

العتبة العباسية المقدسة تعلن تأجيل مؤتمر معالم الحياة الطيبة عند أهل البيت (عليهم السلام) الدولي الثاني

قسم العلاقات العامة يقيم أمسية رمضانية ثقافية لطلبة الأقسام الداخلية في جامعة بابل

قسم الشؤون الفكرية ينظم ختمة قرآنية رمضانية في دولة تشاد بإفريقيا

ضمن مشروع بيوت النور.. المجمع العلمي ينظّم أمسية قرآنية رمضانية في كربلاء

المزيد

الآخبار الصحية

الماء المملح.. فائدة حقيقية أم "صيحة زائفة"؟

عادة بسيطة تدعم الصحة وتحافظ على الوزن المثالي

الغذاء النباتي يقلل مخاطر السرطان.. مع استثناء مهم

الحليب قليل أم كامل الدسم.. أيهما أفضل؟

المزيد

الآخبار التكنلوجية

أنثروبيك تتحدى البنتاغون.. وترامب يأمر بوقف التعامل معها

ميزة جديدة من "إنستغرام" لحماية المراهقين من الانتحار

الأولى من نوعها.. "تقنية مذهلة" في هاتف سامسونغ الجديد

لماذا تشعر المرأة بالألم أكثر من الرجل؟.. دراسة تجيب

المزيد

مواضيع ذات صلة

Motivating a construction grammar

Perfective and imperfective PROCESSES

Situation types

Situation aspect

‘‘Lexicon’’

Concepts

Communicative intentions

What linguistic abilities do animals have?

Some cognitive abilities of animals Introduction

Some cognitive abilities of animals

The epistemic model

Tense