As SBL 2009 I presented a paper on the historical present (HP), which in my view is the crux of the entire aspect debate. To be sure, the Porter/Fanning dialogue has brought a needed corrective to NT studies from trying to treat Greek verbs as conveying
absolute time versus something else. Porter's solution, and those following, to claim that since there is not absolute time conveyed, not temporal reference is conveyed. While this is a correction, it is an over-correction. The present was taken by Porter as the smoking gun in the argument against temporal reference, with frequent past (HP), present and future references to be found. Decker's work was to show the actual distributional problems for the entire book of Mark to test Porter's claims about mixed temporal references and the use of deictic indicators rather than tense to convey temporal reference.
The purpose of my paper was to demonstrate how changing two key presuppositions about the present tense-form completely changed the problem one faced regarding the degree of non-typical temporal reference one found. The full paper is 24 pages, available at
http://www.ntdiscourse.org/publications. This excerpt is my summary of the verb system. It is not meant as an introduction, but as the summary of what had been argued. Posting to the forum removed all formatting, so footnote references are gone. I hope it helps move the discussion forward be showing where there is agreement and how the disagreement can be reconciled by a broader look at how languages typically use tense/aspect systems. This excerpt is intended to illustrate the natural connections of aspect to the advancement or non-advancement of a narrative. We tend to take this function for granted in English, and get distracted from it in Greek because of the hubub about the tense/aspect debate. Here begins the excerpt:
Foley and Van Valin note a significant natural correlation between verbal aspect and the foreground/background distinction. The perfective aspect portrays the action “as a whole” or as “a complete and undifferentiated process.” Since the perfective conceptualizes the action as complete or as a whole, it is not surprising that completed, past-time events are most often portrayed using perfective aspect. This is not to say that perfective action is always past tense, but simply notes the natural correlation. In contrast, imperfective aspect portrays the action as incomplete, but without the same kind of natural correlation with time. The imperfective aspect allows the writer or speaker to establish a state of affairs in which perfective action takes place. This could be in a past- or present-tense context.
Campbell provides a useful description of the relationship between background information and the mainline:
The mainline of the narrative text is concerned with the major events, actions, and developments that project the narrative in the direction it is going. Without the sequence of mainline events and actions, offline information, such as supplemental information, inside information, speech and so forth, will not make sense; these require the mainline to provide context and to enable the reader to understand how the narrative arrived at the location where such offline material is meaningful. Offline material is contingent and dependent upon the mainline events.
In this way, the mainline events represent the foreground of the narrative, whereas the offline information typically represents a pause in the advancement of plot.
In terms of the Greek verbal system, the aorist tense-form is understood to encode perfective aspect, portraying the action as a complete and undifferentiated whole. Most scholars, regardless of their view on tense, associate the aorist with the mainline events of the narrative, as expected from cross-linguistic usage. Robertson states, “The aorist…is not the only way of expressing indefinite (undefined) action, but it is the normal method of doing so.” Decker states, “The aorist is the tense normally used to carry the storyline of the narrative—it moves the account along by specifying the basic events.” Campbell echoes this sentiment, claiming that the aorist grammaticalizes perfective aspect and is used for mainline material. Porter is in basic agreement as well, if one takes into account his resignification of the terminology.
The aorist has traditionally been associated with the past tense, which makes sense based on its depiction of the action as an undifferentiated whole. The nature of the aspect correlates to completed events, but does not demand it. Since there is no other proximate perfective tense-form in Greek, the aorist must play double duty. This explains the use of the aorist in varied temporal or atemporal contexts. In terms of an asymmetrical model of markedness, the aorist is taken as the default tense-form against which the others are described. As Robertson states, “the aorist is the tense used as a matter of course, unless there was special reason for using some other tense.” The frequency of aorist forms is thus understood here as a natural consequence it being the most basic form. By virtue of the discourse task perfective verbs perform in narrative, they prototypically occur in high frequency across languages. So while there is apparent agreement with Porter regarding the aorist form being the default tense, I do not draw the same conclusion regarding its prominence.
The imperfect and present tense-forms are understood to encode imperfective aspect, portraying the action as incomplete. The imperfect tense-form is associated with past tense for those accepting the presence of tense, and with remoteness for those using an aspect-only model. The cross-linguistic association of the imperfective aspect with offline or background information is general rather than unequivocal. Campbell aptly notes that although there is a strong correlation between the imperfect tense-form and offline information, “imperfects are also able to function within the mainline of narrative proper alongside the aorist, which is the dominant mainline tense-form.” Just as the aorist has been heavily associated with past tense, there seems a similar propensity for too strongly correlating the imperfect with offline events. Again, the association is best understood as a natural consequence of the discourse role played by the tense-form rather than as a semantic quality. This is exemplified in the parable of the prodigal son in
Example 1: Luke 15:14-16
14 δαπανήσαντος δὲ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἐγένετο λιμὸς ἰσχυρὰ κατὰ τὴν χώραν ἐκείνην, καὶ αὐτὸς ἤρξατο ὑστερεῖσθαι. 15 καὶ πορευθεὶς ἐκολλήθη ἑνὶ τῶν πολιτῶν τῆς χώρας ἐκείνης, καὶ ἔπεμψεν αὐτὸν εἰς τοὺς ἀγροὺς αὐτοῦ βόσκειν χοίρους, 16 καὶ ἐπεθύμει χορτασθῆναι ἐκ τῶν κερατίων ὧν ἤσθιον οἱ χοῖροι, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδίδου αὐτῷ.
14 Then after he had spent everything, a severe famine took place in that country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and worked for one of the citizens of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He was longing to eat the carob pods the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.
Most of the actions of the prodigal are encoded using aorists (indicated by italics), even the two verbs of being in v. 14 describing the famine and his need. The actions are viewed as an undifferentiated whole. The imperfects (indicated by underline) in v. 16 describe ongoing states of affairs rather whole events. These states of affair set the stage for disclosing his decision to return home in v. 17. His decision was not made in a vacuum, but in response to his ongoing need and neglect.
The present tense-form functions as the proximate imperfective counterpart to the imperfect. Although it shares the same aspect, the present is associated with concurrent action by those using a tense-model, and with deictic proximity by those advocating a tense-less model. Decker describes present tense-forms as “often used for various facets of present time reference. This may be in reference to an activity presently in progress…or to a condition presently in existence.” Campbell provides a compelling case for the strong associate of the present tense-form with direct discourse[ i.e. reported speech], ostensibly due to speech being closely related to the speaker in time and/or space. The strength of this correlation provides the impetus for his proposed explanation mentioned of the HP representing “spill” from reported speech.
To summarize, the aorist tense-form is understood to be the default form for narrative proper, prototypically used for mainline events to advance the storyline. In contrast, the use of the imperfect marks the action as imperfective in nature, often providing offline description or states-of-affair, but not advancing the narrative. The imperfect has an almost exclusive association with past time reference, whereas the usage of the aorist usage is less consistent. The present tense-form is differentiated from the aorist by virtue of its aspect, and from the imperfect tense-from by virtue of its tense/ proximity.
Mismatch of Historical Present in narrative proper
The characteristic use of the aorist indicative for mainline events affects reader’s expectations. Using something other than the aorist implies that a meaning is associated with this choice. If a writer wants to portray a narrative action as imperfective, the preferred tense-from is the imperfect. It matches the context in terms of tense/proximity, but contrasts in terms of aspect. If this is the case, what is the relationship of the HP to this system of narrative tense-forms.
We have already noted that the HP is primarily associated with perfective actions rather than with imperfective ones. The present tense-form contrasts with both the aorist and imperfect. It is understood to mark some discourse feature that the aorist or imperfect forms would not mark. If the HP was simply intended to mark imperfectivity, there would be no distinction between it and the imperfect form?
There are no claims of prominence, tense-reduction, etc. associated with the use of the imperfect. Hence the HP represents a mismatch of aspect compared to the perfective aorist. The HP also stands out in narrative proper because of its tense/proximity. Mainline narrative events are prototypically past time or remote. The use of a present or proximate form thus represents a mismatch of both tense and aspect in the discourse context. If the HP somehow lost its imperfectivity or proximity, the mismatch would be diminished.
I contend that the use of the present tense-form in narrative proper is always intended to mark the presence of a pragmatic feature of discourse, namely highlighting the presence of a natural discontinuity. Regardless of whether the verb is one of propulsion or speech, the usage is construed as intentionally marking this feature. Use of the present tense-form in narrative proper is a non-default usage of the form. In contrast, those advocating a tense-less description of the verb system have described this widespread use of the present as conclusive evidence for the absence of tense. Such a claim both misrepresents the usage and the temporal distribution of the forms.
Impact of HP usage as marked on temporal distribution of tense-forms
The aspect-only model of the verbal system claims that what has typically been expressed as a temporal distinction between the tense-forms is better understood as deictic in nature. Furthermore, this deictic distinction is primarily spatial in nature rather than temporal. Nevertheless, Porter acknowledges regarding the distinction between present and imperfect that “it is as this juncture alone that tense forms in Greek—the Imperfect and Pluperfect—approach time-based tense forms.” Decker too recognizes the fine distinction between deictics and tense: “Despite the nearly exclusive use of the imperfect form to express past time in Mark, this does not require that the semantic value of the imperfect be defined as that of past time.” After referring to the deictic explanations of Porter, Millhouse and Decker, Campbell states “the temporal reference of the imperfect indicative is difficult to disprove, since it is quite consistently past-referring.”
If a stronger case could be made for distributional consistency of the tense-forms, then the need to appeal to spatial rather than a temporal deixis would diminish as well. Porter and Decker rely upon distributional information for support. They also rely heavily upon their portrayal of the HP as prototypical usage.
Statistics can be a double-edged sword, as their interpretation is heavily affected by presuppositions. As presuppositions change, so do the conclusions yielded by the data. I illustrate this by reconsidering Decker’s data regarding the temporal distribution of the three primary indicative tense-forms found in narrative proper. Table 1 contains Decker’s figures from Mark that treat the HP as though it were representative use of the present.
- runge-1.png (34.36 KiB) Viewed 4589 times
At first blush, only the imperfect appears to show a high degree of consistency, exceeding 95%.
Porter and Decker have compellingly shown that Greek is not primarily tense-based. If, however, Greek is a mixed tense/aspect system as the traditional grammarians and typologists have claimed, we should expect to find a strong temporal consistency in the distribution, with the possible exception of the aorist. As noted earlier, the aorist lacks a proximate perfective counterpart, and could thus be expected to manifest more variation. If the language is mixed tense/aspect, one could also expect aspectual considerations to trump temporal ones in certain context, leading to something less than 100% consistency.
Since the HP is marked both on the basis of its tense/proximity and aspect, the data cannot legitimately be included in the prototypical description; it must be treated separately. To do otherwise is to misrepresent the core meaning of the present tense-form. It would ignore that the pragmatic effects associated with the HP are only claimed for the historical usage in narrative proper, not that found in non-narrative contexts like reported speech. In order to truly understand the core semantic meaning of the forms, pragmatically marked usage must be excluded from the overall count.
Another factor is the treatment of temporally undefined data. Due to its atemporal reference, the usage is likely motivated by the core aspectual meaning of the form, as suggested by Smythe. rather than by its temporal reference. If this use is part of the core meaning of the form, it should either be included with the core use of the form, or excluded altogether. With respect to the temporal discussion, undefined usage does not prove anything one way or the other.
Table 2 excludes the HP data from the present on the basis that they are not prototypical. In the first column under each tense, the “undefined” data added to the prototypical on the basis that these tokens represent aspectual considerations overriding temporal ones. The second column removes the undefined altogether from consideration. Viewed in this way, they neither prove nor disprove temporal distribution since there is no temporal basis on which to judge.
- runge-2.png (36.3 KiB) Viewed 4589 times
This exercise illustrates that statistical conclusions greatly depend upon one’s presuppositions. Changing the presuppositions impacts the conclusions drawn. Understanding the HP usage as non-prototypical significantly impacts the data. For a language which does not grammaticalize temporal information, distributional data approaching or exceeding the 90% seems implausible. The undefined data in each category is reasonably understood as aspectually-driven, where the aspectual considerations override the temporal ones. Reclassifying the HP and undefined references clarifies the distributional picture. Although one would hardly expect 100% consistency in the usage, Decker’s modified data is approaching that in all but the present.
--End quote--
I think that Porter's proposal has done much to advance things beyond "tense as absolute time," but there is still further to go. The fuller paper talks about English as a tense-prominent language and Greek as an aspect-prominent language. This does not mean Greek has no temporal reference in the indicative, but simply that aspectual considerations will outweigh temporal ones.