The Terminology of Aspect & Aktionsart

David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Aspect & Aktionsart

Post by David Lim »

KimmoHuovila wrote:I don't see any change in the telicity of the lexeme. Walking is the same activity, regardless of whether you are just walking with no goal or walking to get to the park. 'Walk' becomes telic only by adding a goal to be attained ('to the park'). Thus the telicity resides solely in the phrase outside of lexical semantics.
If a verb is labelled as an "activity", it amounts to labelling it with a restriction on what aspects it supports, among other things. But I don't think those labels are enough to describe everything about aspect satisfactorily. I don't have the resources for this kind of research and don't have very good examples, but I try my best.
Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:Something seems to be operating a higher level of generality than the lexicon. (Aspectologists might say, well that's because walk etc. and other verbs of mannered motion are activities, and that's what they do with these PPs; and go etc., well, they're achievements and they like to the park but not in the park; and sit, stand, etc., you see, they're states, which like in the park but not to the park.)

If too much of aspectuality is in the lexicon, then these patterns cannot be seen and grammatical rules for their interaction with other words and phrases cannot be predicted or articulated.
Do you mean "accomplishment" instead of "achievement"?

I don't see anything wrong with considering such generalizations to actually be descriptive patterns of an underlying lexicon. Each word has its own idiosyncracies which have to be learnt separately, which suggests to me that there is a finer lexical structure to each word. Even English lexicons try to differentiate between lexical meanings, though they often don't do that for aspect, and even if they do they don't use the term "aspect", probably because many native speakers aren't consciously aware of the difference even if they unconsciously choose words with the right lexical meaning.

And what about "headed to the park"? Is "head" an achievement? If it is, what about "headed towards the park" or "headed North"? It seems that we can't just classify verbs into a finite number of categories and expect all words in each category to interact in exactly the same ways, so doesn't it still come down to the lexicon in the end? Perhaps what you mean by "operating at a higher generality" is just what I view as people being able to recognize and apply patterns in the lexicon, and so they can in the same way recognize and memorize exceptions to those patterns. Just like we recognize the pattern that we use "put X in Y" when we put X within the "boundary" of Y but we use "put X on Y" when we put X on the "boundary" (not necessarily the top) of Y, and we don't even need to be conscious of this pattern or spend mental effort to know which kind of "Y" supports which actions; "on a spoon", "in a bowl", "on a plate", "in a dish", "on a table", "on a wall", "in/on a box"... but the lexical restrictions are indeed there.
δαυιδ λιμ
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Aspect & Aktionsart

Post by Stephen Carlson »

KimmoHuovila wrote:Is there any reason why not recognize aspect as truly layered? 'Walk' is atelic, 'walk to the park' is telic, 'walk to the park every day' is atelic, 'walk to the park every day for a week' is telic etc?
I've come round to this position, yes.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: The Terminology of Aspect & Aktionsart

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Hi David. To make an analogy with computer programming, you sound like the person saying, "I don't understand why one needs functions or classes; I can just copy-and-paste the code wherever I want!" Er, I suppose you can, but if you do so, your program (or analogously, your grammatical theory) will be an ugly mess.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
MAubrey
Posts: 1090
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Aspect & Aktionsart

Post by MAubrey »

David Lim wrote:I don't see anything wrong with considering such generalizations to actually be descriptive patterns of an underlying lexicon. Each word has its own idiosyncracies which have to be learnt separately, which suggests to me that there is a finer lexical structure to each word. Even English lexicons try to differentiate between lexical meanings, though they often don't do that for aspect, and even if they do they don't use the term "aspect", probably because many native speakers aren't consciously aware of the difference even if they unconsciously choose words with the right lexical meaning.
David Lim wrote:And what about "headed to the park"? Is "head" an achievement? If it is, what about "headed towards the park" or "headed North"?
What about them? They're all accomplishments. Why would you think these are achievements?
David Lim wrote:It seems that we can't just classify verbs into a finite number of categories and expect all words in each category to interact in exactly the same ways, so doesn't it still come down to the lexicon in the end? Perhaps what you mean by "operating at a higher generality" is just what I view as people being able to recognize and apply patterns in the lexicon, and so they can in the same way recognize and memorize exceptions to those patterns. Just like we recognize the pattern that we use "put X in Y" when we put X within the "boundary" of Y but we use "put X on Y" when we put X on the "boundary" (not necessarily the top) of Y, and we don't even need to be conscious of this pattern or spend mental effort to know which kind of "Y" supports which actions; "on a spoon", "in a bowl", "on a plate", "in a dish", "on a table", "on a wall", "in/on a box"... but the lexical restrictions are indeed there.
The nature of a objects as being conceived as a container or a surface (in vs. on) is a very much a red herring that is irrelevant to the point at hand. Native speakers don't need to spend the mental effort, because the cognitive conceptualization of these objects as either containers or surfaces is indeed in the lexical. And we know they're in the lexicon because native speakers distinguish them. But that's the point: native speakers don't recognize these different contextual realizations of "head" or "walk" as being distinctions. They're all treated as the same.

I feel like I'm repeating myself...
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: The Terminology of Aspect & Aktionsart

Post by David Lim »

Stephen Carlson wrote:Hi David. To make an analogy with computer programming, you sound like the person saying, "I don't understand why one needs functions or classes; I can just copy-and-paste the code wherever I want!" Er, I suppose you can, but if you do so, your program (or analogously, your grammatical theory) will be an ugly mess.
Oh I think you misunderstood then. I meant that each word has its own set of properties whether or not we list them out, and though we may invent names for categories that adequately describe the behaviour of a large set of words, I don't see a need to suppose the existence of an actual prototype for each set. I am not saying that it is impossible, but I am not convinced that prototype theory is correct. If you don't mind discussing, what is the prototype for "headed" and how does it end up with those particular restrictions on its aspect, in your opinion? Also, how do semantically complicated words like "simple", "similarity", "strange", "do" and "change" fit into prototype theory? Thanks!
MAubrey wrote:
David Lim wrote:And what about "headed to the park"? Is "head" an achievement? If it is, what about "headed towards the park" or "headed North"?
What about them? They're all accomplishments. Why would you think these are achievements?
I used "achievement" because Stephen used "achievement" for the verbs that are compatible with "to the park" but not "in the park" in his post, which I also questioned. However, for "head" if you consider it an accomplishment, why is it that it is atelic in "head North for an hour"? Same with "go to the park", which typically implies an end point at the park, in contrast with "go towards the park" which is atelic. How do you explain this?
MAubrey wrote:The nature of a objects as being conceived as a container or a surface (in vs. on) is a very much a red herring that is irrelevant to the point at hand. Native speakers don't need to spend the mental effort, because the cognitive conceptualization of these objects as either containers or surfaces is indeed in the lexical. And we know they're in the lexicon because native speakers distinguish them. But that's the point: native speakers don't recognize these different contextual realizations of "head" or "walk" as being distinctions. They're all treated as the same.

I feel like I'm repeating myself...
Mike, I appreciate your input, and you're not repeating yourself. But English lexicons do distinguish different contextual realizations of "head" and "walk" in that that lexical meaning of "head" requires a specified direction, unlike "walk". I am also saying that since many factors determining which verbs are compatible with which prepositional phrases are lexical in nature, why is it wrong that these include restrictions on aspect? As I made clear earlier, I don't mean that aspect comes solely from the verb, and I agree that adverbs and the context in general can be used to specify different aspects, but it seems to me that the verb must in the first place be compatible, and then the language user can use various ways to select the right lexical meaning. I do posit that the vast majority do this unconsciously in general conversations but they are able to distinguish which words can be used in which constructions when asked, even if they can't explain it, which suggests that they have assimilated that as lexical information.
δαυιδ λιμ
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: The Terminology of Aspect & Aktionsart

Post by Stephen Carlson »

David Lim wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:Hi David. To make an analogy with computer programming, you sound like the person saying, "I don't understand why one needs functions or classes; I can just copy-and-paste the code wherever I want!" Er, I suppose you can, but if you do so, your program (or analogously, your grammatical theory) will be an ugly mess.
Oh I think you misunderstood then. I meant that each word has its own set of properties whether or not we list them out, and though we may invent names for categories that adequately describe the behaviour of a large set of words, I don't see a need to suppose the existence of an actual prototype for each set. I am not saying that it is impossible, but I am not convinced that prototype theory is correct. If you don't mind discussing, what is the prototype for "headed" and how does it end up with those particular restrictions on its aspect, in your opinion? Also, how do semantically complicated words like "simple", "similarity", "strange", "do" and "change" fit into prototype theory? Thanks!
Hi David. I have to admit I sometimes can't figure out what you're talking about. Like now, for instance. I haven't been talking about prototype theory and I'm not sure how it's supposed to fit into the conversation. At any rate, with regard to this thread's topic of aspect and Aktionsart, the issue is how much about a verb's aspectuality is stored in the mental lexicon and how much is derivable by the application of rules and other syntactic operations.

I would really encourage you--if you're interested in participating productively in this kind of conversation--to begin acquiring a basic linguistic foundation. I would recommend Payne's Describing Morphosyntax or Frawley's Linguistic Syntax. Heck for aspectology, I'd be happy if you started with Kimmo Huovila's thesis he put online at http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hu ... wardsa.pdf and worked up from there.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
MAubrey
Posts: 1090
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 8:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Terminology of Aspect & Aktionsart

Post by MAubrey »

David Lim wrote:Mike, I appreciate your input, and you're not repeating yourself.
Actually, I am, if you look back at my posts in this thread.
David Lim wrote:But English lexicons do distinguish different contextual realizations of "head" and "walk" in that that lexical meaning of "head" requires a specified direction, unlike "walk". I am also saying that since many factors determining which verbs are compatible with which prepositional phrases are lexical in nature, why is it wrong that these include restrictions on aspect?
Because they're not separate senses of these verbs. You're (wrongly) trying to make practical lexicography into a theoretical semantic construct and language doesn't work like that.
David Lim wrote:As I made clear earlier, I don't mean that aspect comes solely from the verb, and I agree that adverbs and the context in general can be used to specify different aspects, but it seems to me that the verb must in the first place be compatible, and then the language user can use various ways to select the right lexical meaning. I do posit that the vast majority do this unconsciously in general conversations but they are able to distinguish which words can be used in which constructions when asked, even if they can't explain it, which suggests that they have assimilated that as lexical information.
There's nothing inherently lexical about a person's ability "to distinguish which words can be used in which constructions when asked, even if they can't explain it."
Mike Aubrey, Linguist
SIL International
Koine-Greek.com
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: The Terminology of Aspect & Aktionsart

Post by David Lim »

Stephen Carlson wrote:Hi David. I have to admit I sometimes can't figure out what you're talking about. Like now, for instance. I haven't been talking about prototype theory and I'm not sure how it's supposed to fit into the conversation. At any rate, with regard to this thread's topic of aspect and Aktionsart, the issue is how much about a verb's aspectuality is stored in the mental lexicon and how much is derivable by the application of rules and other syntactic operations.
Sorry I assumed you were taking a prototype theory approach to explain aspect of a verb. Anyway I was trying to say that aspect is both in the verb and in the syntactical structures it is used in, and both must match, and that it is not separated into two parts, one part in the mental lexicon and one part in the syntax.
Stephen Carlson wrote:I would really encourage you--if you're interested in participating productively in this kind of conversation--to begin acquiring a basic linguistic foundation. I would recommend Payne's Describing Morphosyntax or Frawley's Linguistic Syntax. Heck for aspectology, I'd be happy if you started with Kimmo Huovila's thesis he put online at http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hu ... wardsa.pdf and worked up from there.
Yes I have read through Kimmo's paper and agree with much of it except with regard to prototype theory, which is related to mental representations, for the same reason as above.
MAubrey wrote:There's nothing inherently lexical about a person's ability "to distinguish which words can be used in which constructions when asked, even if they can't explain it."
I believe we fundamentally disagree on mental representations.. But thanks for sharing your thoughts anyway! I'll think about it.
δαυιδ λιμ
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: The Terminology of Aspect & Aktionsart

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Bill Mounce on his blog has just weighed in with another definition of Aktionsart:
Meaning is communicated in more ways than time and aspect, and when we see a verb in a certain tense with a certain aspect, there are other factors that determine its meaning. This is Aktionsart.

Aktionsart is the meaning of a particular verb in context, taking into consideration tense (in the indicative), aspect, lexical meaning of the verb, grammatical constructions, and other pieces of information gleaned from the context (e.g., genre).
I don't recommend this usage, however.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”