Tense and Aspect Systems

Language, 2001

1983

This study deals with the cross-linguistic interpretation of aspect and tense in natural languages which have superficially disparate morphological structure. It is argued that in Yao, Chea (Bantu languages) and English, where aspect for instance, is not as systematically grarnmaticalized as it is in Slavic, the interpretation of aspect and tense must be one which construes them as theoretical (conceptual) categories. We assume essentially that both aspect and tense are characterized by temporal primitives which are often though riot invariably, denoted by morphological markers. "Verbal aspect" in Slavic for example, is effectively defined by the temporal stretch encoded in (or signalled by) a productive system of afuixal marking. The temporal stretch is characteristically completive, inceptive, resumptive, durative, continuative, punctual, iterative etc. These aspectual time schemata have affinities with those assumed by philosophers and linguists like Vendler (1957), Ken...

LSA Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts, 2014

Languages

Variation across languages has always fascinated linguists, but in the past, cross-linguistic variation has mostly been investigated in form-related subdisciplines (phonetics/phonology, morphology, syntax) [...]

De Gruyter eBooks, 2017

The tense-mood-aspect systems of the languages of Suriname 313 to contact induced change than aspect, which is more susceptible than future tense, etc. A further hierarchy was also posited for modal categories. The < arrows indicate the direction of the implicational pattern in the data. (3) Matras (2007: 45-46) a. TMA: modality < aspect < future tense < other tenses b. modality (esp. MAT): obligation < necessity < possibility < ability < desire With this, Matras provides yet another possible hierarchy for the borrowability (and by implication, stability) of both forms and structures in the realm of TMA.

American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures, 1999

The theoretical aim of this book, indicated by its subtitle, is to elucidate the interface between semantic interpretation and morphosyntactic structure. Its empirical domain, indicated by the title, would appear to be ideally suited to this goal. Tense and aspect are well-studied semantic categories, but ones in which there are still plenty of puzzles. It is reasonable to think that an improved understanding may come about through detailed study of the

2001

Linguistics, 2003

This review is devoted to the bulk of Giorgi and Pianesi's (1997) proposal for the (morpho-)syntax and semantics of tense and aspect, presented in chapters 1-4 of their book. The authors investigate the cross-linguistic variation in the semantics of various tense forms (Present, Imperfect, Present Perfect) and claim that it can be directly linked to their morphosyntactic properties, expressed in terms of an explicit theory of functional features and projections. In our critical discussion we contend that (a) the treatment of aspect is deficient (in particular, we criticize the unified analysis of the different usages of the Italian Present Perfect); (b) the treatment of actionalitythat is, Aktionsart-phenomena is occasionally misconceived; (c) the syntactic treatment of the ''P-definiteness constraint'' (Klein 1992) presents some technical problems. On these grounds, we put forward two more general remarks. The first one concerns the assumption that there is a strict correspondence between the morphological exponence of specific inflectional features and tenseaspect semantics. We believe instead that the three levels of semantics, syntax, and morphology must be assumed to be partially independent, although related in a nonarbitrary way. Second, we suggest that G&P have failed to take into account the discourse function of tenses. Although a formal syntactic analysis of tense and aspect is obviously relevant, tense and aspect are intrinsically ''interface phenomena,'' where the syntactic configurations yielded by the computational system crucially interact with the independent constraints of other external systems.

2000

1999

This collection presents typological work on tense, aspect, and epistemic modality in a variety of languages and against the background of different schools of thinking, among which the St. Petersburg Typological School developed and so masterfully implemented by the Petersburg linguist, Vladimir Petrovich Nedjalkov. The volume honors this reputed scholar for his life work. It is in mainly this spirit that the following scholars have contributed to the volume: T. Tsunoda on Warrungu (Australian indigeneous language), L. Kulikov on Vedic, K. Kiryu on Japanese, Korean and Newari, N. Sumbatova on Svan (from the Kartvelian group), T.Bulygina & A. Shmelev, V. Plungian, Y. Poupynin, E. Rakhilina and G. Silnitsky on Russian, W. Boeder on Georgian, R. Thieroff on aorist and imperfect in European languages, on Russian, L. Johanson on Kipchak Turkic, I. Dolinina on Russian, N. Kozintseva on Old and Modern Eastern Armenian, Ch. Lee on Korean, W. Abraham on split ergative languages and German on Russian, on Russian, and K. Ebert on Kalmyk.