[b-greek] Re: Scientific theory of aspect - To Rolf

From: Rolf Furuli (furuli@online.no)
Date: Sun Dec 24 2000 - 08:45:39 EST


Dear Moon,

See my comments below:


Moon:
>Dear Rolf,

>in recent discussions of aorist aspect and aspect in general, I learned
>quite a bit from you. I would like to continue the discussion in two
>directions: 1) the parameters by means of which to describe and explain
>the role of aspect 2) the intuition behind the selection of those
>parameters.

RF: It is a very fine approach to ask for the intuition and the parameters
of a particular scheme or model. I am indebted to Mary Broman Olsen for the
basic assumptions of my study; I used similar assumptions in my thesis of
1995, but they were not spelled out in such a clear and excellent way as
she has done.

>I think both are quite related. 2) should be tested and verified by
>how the selected parameters explain the data.

RF:
Intuition (assumption) 1: Some morphosyntactic parts that we use for
communication are uncancellable as far as meaning is concerned; they will
have the same meaning under any circumstances. These represent "semantic
meaning". Other morphosyntactic parts are cancellable; their meaning will
change in different environments. These represent "conversational pragmatic
implicature".

Intuition (assumption) 2: There is a basic difference between the event or
state that we speak about and the words used to describe it. Communication
is in a subjective way to use words and other means to help the
hearer/reader to see the state or event or a part of them from a
particular angle or in a particular light.

Intuition (assumption) 3: The basic factor used to describe an event or
state is the verb. The author makes use of many factors in his or her
subjective attempt to convey meaning to the hearer/reader. Some factors
are: lexical meaning, Aktionsart, mood, diathesis, aspect, the nature of
the subject/object -singular/plural/definite/indefinite, linguistic
convention, and a knowledge of the world.

Intuition (assumption) 4. Language is in principle not different from
natural phenomena which are studied by the natural sciences. The smaller
the part is that we are studying, the more certain are our conclusions. The
minimal pair-situation where there are just two possibilities is the ideal
situation. The certainty of our conclusions decreases propotionally with
the number of elements that we have to explain at the same time.

Based on these intuitions, several working principles can be diverted.

Based on 1): Find the parts of communication that represent "semantic meaning".
Based on 2): Any definition or description of aspect must express clearly
whether it refers to the literal event or state or just to the part that is
being made visible.
Based on 3): When we make a definition of aspect, we should assure
ourselves that it is based on the function of aspect alone, and not on one
or more of the other factors that are used to convey meaning.
Based on 4): The unit of study must be the "word" (this term is ambiguous
but at this stage it is useful) and how it functions in its clause. Studies
of units above the word/clause-level (such as discourse analysis) is
meaningful for other purposes but is not meaningful in an attempt to find
the meaning of aspect.



>I have some questions about 1) and 2).

>About 1) Rolf has something to say. He said:

>In lexical semantics and word studies we distinguish between 'word',
>'concept', and 'reference'. The 'word' is just a semantic signal which has
>no meaning in itself, the 'concept' is the 'entry' in the mental lexicon
>signalled by the word, i.e. the total range of meaning that a particular
>word can signal, which is stored in our mind. The 'reference' is the thing
>in the world denoted by the word.

>The concepts in the minds of people having the same presupposition pool
>may
>be quite broad; each concept use to have a nucleus which is easily
>discernable but it becomes become fuzzy toward its border. It is the
>context which helps the listener/reader to ascertain which side
>of the concept that is made visible. In my view the contect does not
>generate new meaning, it only helps make visible a part of what already is
>there.

>A distinction as the one above is almost never made in aspectual studies
>or
>definitions. For instance, when the words 'bounded' and 'complete(d)' are
>used, to what do they refer? Do they refer to the real, objective event or
>state, or just to the part of the event or state that the author has made
>visible? In other words, Can we say that any event that is expressed by an
>aorist factually is terminated?

RF
>---------------------------------------------
>In my view the perfective and imperfective
>aspects play about the same role in relation to events and states

>(signalled by verbs) as the context does in relation to things and
>qualities (expressed by substantives). The aspects do not generate new
>meaning, but they make visible (by the interplay of several other factors)
>a particular side of the events and states. It is from this point of view
>meaningless to define aspects with words such as 'bounded', 'not bounded',
>'punctiliar', 'durative' etc.
>-----------------------------------
>
>[MOON]
>a very good point assuming that the aspect is one of the factors
>that help the speaker refer to a particular side of the situation.
>
>---
RF:
> This does not mean that 'aspect' is a
>metaphysical concept or is so elusive that it cannot be defined. MH
>GENOITO! But to get a meaningful understanding we should analyse aspects
>in
>a similar way as words ara analysed, as mentioned above.I use three
>parameters to distinguish between the aspects: 1) The kind of focus
>(closeup/distance, details visible or not),2) the area of focus (length of
>section of Event time intersected by Reference time), and 3) The angle of
>fucus i relation the the nucleus (before/after nucleus, beginning/end
>included or not).
>-----------------------
>
>[MOON]
>Do you have five angles of focus: before the nucleus, after the nucleus,
>the beginning of the nucleus, the end of the nucleus, the middle of the
>nucleus?
>

RF
I have for a long time tried to find parameters by which to distinguish

between the perfective and imperfective aspects. I use Mari's conclusion,
in which I agree, that as far as "lexical aspect" (I use "procedural
characteristics") is concerned, durativity, telicity, and dynamicity
represent "semantic meaning" but punctiliarity, atelicity, and stativity
represent "conversational pragmatic implicature". I further use Mari's
scheme of reference time (RT), event time (ET), and deictic point (C)
rather than Reichenbach/Comrie's scheme with the same properties. I agree
with Mari that tense represent a semantic relationship: past tense RT>C,
Present tense C=RT, and future tense C>RT. This scheme can be used both for
tense-languages and to demonstrate that some languages do not have
grammaticalized tenses. I use these conclusion as my frame of reference.

As to aspect, I agree with Mari that there is a semantic relationship in
the English aspectual system, but I disagree with her that this is
universal. Neither Greek nor Hebrew aspect is similar to English aspect, so
to define or describe aspect in Greek and Hebrew (I primarily work with
Hebrew) I use Mari's English model as a point of departure, and try to find
how much of it fits Greek and Hebrew.

As to the angle of the focus of the intersection of ET by RT, I use the
concepts,

Conative: before the beginning.
Inceptive: beginning included.
Progressive: nucleus included, or focus before or after the nucleus.
Egressive: immediately before the end.
Resultative: end included - resulting state.

As to the kind (quality) of focus of the intersection of ET by RT, the
center of interest is the "distance" of the focus, whether the details of
the situation are made visible or not.

The third parameter is the the length of the area where ET is intersected
by RT; is it a small part or a greater part, even the whole situation?

Applying the parameters, I have found that the imperfective aspects of
English and Hebrew/Greek are similar in two of the three parameters: 1)
Both are closeup views of a section of the ET where progressive action or a
continuous state is seen. 2) Both cover just a small section of the ET. But
as to 3) the angle of focus is different because Greek and Hebrew aspect
have several possible angles while the English just has one.

The perfective aspects in English and Hebrew/Greek are similar in just
parameter 1): Both represent a view where the details are not visible, as
if something is seen from some distance. But regarding 2), the area covered
in Greek and Hebrew is different from the English one with its focus on the
coda; and regarding 3), the angles are different in Greek and Hebrew
compared to English.

>


>--------------------------
>Your arguments are consistent and logical, but we use completely different
>systems of analysis. Each system may hava advantages and disadvantages.
>But
>I believe that it is important for any system to differentiate between the
>'reference' (the real objective situation), and what can be compared to
>'word/concept' (which part of the situation that is made visible.
>--------------------------
>
>[MOON]
>I am confused here. I would think that the reference should be
>the part of the situation that is denoted by the concept.
>The reference is determined by the aspect and contextual
>factors.

Perhaps to use 'reference', which is taken from word studies,in aspectual
studies, can be confusing. So I will rather point with my finger instead of
describing. What I tried to convey, was that almost always when aspect is
used in an argument regarding meaning, the factual situation and the words
describing it are confused. I propper the following claim: The aspect alone
cannot tell us whether a state or an event objectively was terminated at
speech time! So we should not draw an extensive conclusion regarding
meaning by the use of aspect.



Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo








---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu




This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:45 EDT