Is this the way to study grammar?

[R.J. Furuli]

Dear Ken

RF: Thank you for your quick answers. I do not want to be nitpicking, but have some additional questions.

Some quick answers:

1) What is the "temporal constituency of a situation"?

That expression comes from Comrie. I understand aspect to indicate how the event time and reference time overlap.

What does "overlap" mean? Can you give one or two examples where event time and reference time overlap?

2) What is a "complete event"? Is there a difference between a "complete event" and a "completed event"?

For aspectual purposes, a complete event is one that whose time is completely included in the reference time. Yes, there is a difference between a complete event and a completed event. This is especially noticeable in future complete events, which are not yet completed.

I need one or two examples, because the event is said to be "complete," and aspect is a subjective viewpoint.

3) If "I did" and "I was doing" have an aspectual difference, does that mean that simple past both is a tense and an aspect?

No.

Is the perfective aspect grammaticalized in English? If so, which verb form expresses the perfective aspect?

4) Broman Olsen argues that the English participle represents the imperfective aspect and that English perfect represents the perfective aspect; simple past is only a tense and not an aspect. If that is not correct, what is English perfect? Is it an aspect, a tense, or something else?

English perfect is a relative tense, in which E<R=S.

5) Would you please give your definition of what event time and reference time are? Broman Olsen's definition differs, for example, from Reichenbach's and Comrie's definitions.

Could you provide page references to the definitions by Broman Olsen, Reichenbach, and Comrie?

I will return to that.

I take it my post at viewtopic.php?f=6&t=33&start=10#p101 was not clear or not read.
Event time is when the event takes place. Historical reality sets the event time.
For a statement, reference time is the time about which the statement is predicated. Temporal expressions such as "now," "yesterday" "when John arrives" as well as context set the reference time.

For me it seems that this definition of reference time is the same as the definition of the deictic center in the relative tenses. In other words, "reference time" seems to be the vantagepoint from which an event is seen. Is that correct?

I have asked you several questions regarding your definitions, and I think it is fair that I give my definitions:

The deictic center (C) is the vantage point from which an event or state is seen. Very often C is speech time, but it can also be a point in the past or in the future, as you have shown. Event time (ET) is the time from the beginning to the end of an event or state. I use reference time (RT) in the same way that Broman Olsen uses the concept; this is different from the use of Reichenbach and Comrie.

COMMUNICATION MEANS TO MAKE A PART OF A MEANING POTENTIAL VISIBLE AND TO KEEP THE REST INVISIBLE. This is a Psycholinguistic way to express the issue.

Psycholinguistic experiments suggest that each word represents a concept in the mind of living people (sometimes two concepts). Each concept has a rather clear necleus but becomes more fuzzy toward the edges. When a person speaks of writes and use words, each uttered word represents only a part of each concept. In other words, only a part of the concept represented by the word is made visible for the audience, and the rest of the concept (its meaning potential) remains invisible. This principle of visibility/invisibility applies both to lexical semantics and to actions and states.

Let us look at one example from lexical semantics, namely the word NP$. Its basic meaning (its nucleus) is "a living creature." But in different contexts the word can refer to human beings, animals, corpses (humans who once were living creatures), to the life as a creature, or the right to live as a creature, etc. Only the particular reference (signalling a restricted part of the concept) is made visible in each case, and everything else remains invisible. The tool used to make this part visible that is used by the writer or speaker is the context.

Let us now apply the principle to actions (events), and in these situations, what is made visible, represents reference time (RT). I will use Comrie's example, referred to by you:

1) John read the book yesterday; while he was reading it, the postman came.

What is event time (ET) in the temporal clause? The time it took John to read the book from beginning to end is ET. What is made visible of ET? A part of ET after the beginning and before the end, and neither the beginning nor end is made visible. The part that is made visible is not the moment when the postman came, but a part of John's reading in which the postman came.

Another example without the postman could be:

2) Ann was working in the garden.

The beginning and end of ET are not made visible, but only a part in the middle. This part (the reading and the working) that is made visible, is reference time (RT) We see that RT is smaller than ET, and we can say that RT intersects ET at the nucleus (in the middle). This is the imperfective aspect in English. What is the first part of 1) "John read the book yesterday"? It is a simple past clause; it represents tense and not aspect.

Where does RT intersect ET when the aspect is perfective? Please look at 3).

3) Ann has worked in the garden.

The ET is the same as in 2), but RT intersects ET at the coda (the end). So what is made visible of the action is the end and not the beginning and the progressive action toward the end. This is the English perfective aspect—the action is completed. In English, there are only two aspectual options; either RT intersects ET et the nucleus or at the coda.

Because ET (the time of the event from its beginning to end) and RT (the part of ET that is intersected and therefore made visible) are clearly defined and are rather easy to understand, they can be used as parameters to find if a dead language is aspectual, and in that case, what the definitions and applications of the aspects are. In other words, where do RT intersect ET in that language; which parts of the actions are made visible by particular verb forms?

Whereas there er only two aspectual options in English, there are many in Hebrew. As an expression of the imperfective aspect, RT can intersect "ET" before the beginning of an action (conative events), at the beginning and a part of the action (ingressive events), after the beginning and before the end (progressive events), immediately before the end (egressive events), at the end and the beginning of the resultant state (resultative events). As an expression of the perfective aspect, RT can intersect ET at the beginning (inceptive events), at the end (present completed ("perfect") events), a great part of ET including the beginning but not the end (constative events), and the whole action, including beginning and end (constative events).

From the descriptions above, it is obvious that the Hebrew aspects are very different from the English ones, even though there are similarities as well.

The crucial issue in this discussion is: What is reference time? To understand aspect we need to have a clear understanding of reference time.



Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway

[R.J. Furuli]

Dear Ken,


I refer to B. Comrie, Tense 1985.

Om p. 65, note 8, Comrie rejects some of Reichenbach's viewpoints. His own discussion is found in chapter 6, particularly on pages 124 to 130.

I also refer to M. Broman Olsen, A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and G"rammatical Aspect, 1997.

On p. 117, Broman Olsen writes: "This chapter differs somewhat from the previous two in that I focus on two theoretical analyses of tense: Reichenbach (1947) and Comrie (1985). I show that these models are unecessarily complex because they conflate tense and aspect properties and do not distinguish between semantic meaning and conversational pragmatic implicature."

On p. 118, Broman Olsen writes:

"My analysis differs from Reichenbach and Comrie in three main respects: it eliminates the problematic distinction between absolute and relative tense, it allows tense to relate to a C other than ST (speech time), and it assigns the relation between ET and RT to aspect."

I do not have the book of Reichenbach where I am at present.

5) Would you please give your definition of what event time and reference time are? Broman Olsen's definition differs, for example, from Reichenbach's and Comrie's definitions.

Could you provide page references to the definitions by Broman Olsen, Reichenbach, and Comrie?
I take it my post at viewtopic.php?f=6&t=33&start=10#p101 was not clear or not read.
Event time is when the event takes place. Historical reality sets the event time.
For a statement, reference time is the time about which the statement is predicated. Temporal expressions such as "now," "yesterday" "when John arrives" as well as context set the reference time.[/quote]


Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway

[Ken M. Penner]

Rolf, I have always found your expressions "make visible" and "intersect" confusing. I think I am beginning to understand what you mean by them.
I understand now that when you say "part of an event is made visible" you mean what I mean when I say "part of E overlaps R."
When you say "RT intersects ET" you mean what I mean when I say "R overlaps E".

To confirm: do you see RT as a point or a span or interval, or can it be something more complex (like "every weekday at noon")?
How would you describe the difference between deictic centre and reference time?

[Ken M. Penner]

I do not have the book of Reichenbach where I am at present.

Perhaps this scan of what is probably the relevant section would help.

[R.J. Furuli]

Dear Ken,

It would be fine if you and I meant the same but used different words. But that does not appear to be the case. It seems to me that your view of reference time is quite close to Comrie's view, whereas my view is similar to Broman Olsen's view. You wrote: "reference time is the time about which the statement is predicated." I do not understand what you mean, so could you please give a more detailed explanation and give some examples.

I give some examples below which illustrates my definition of RT, "RT is the part of ET that is focused upon and made visible to the audience."

The beginning and a part of ET is made visible:
1 Kings 6:1 In the four hundred and eightieth year … he began to build (WAYYIQTOL) the temple.

The event is attempted but not carried through, so a part before the beginning of ET is made visible (a conative event):
Gen 37:21 When Reuben heard (WAYYIQTOL) this, he tried to deliver (WAYYIQTOL) him from their hands.

A part of the event in the middle of ET is made visible in all the three WAYYIQTOLs:

2 Samuel 16:13 So David and his men continued to walk (WAYYIQTOL) while Shimei was walking (PART) on the side of the mountain; he was cursing ( WAYYIQTOL) and went on throwing stones (WAYYIQTOL) at him while he was going (INFIN ABS ) abreast of him; and he threw (WEQATAL) a lot of dust.

A part in the middle of a state is made visible. The clause can be compared to Comrie's example of the imperfective aspect, "while he was reading, the postman came."
Gen 2:21 And while he was sleeping (WAYYIQTOL), he took (WAYYIQTOL) one of his ribs and closed up (WAYYIQTOL) the flesh over its place.

The end of ET and a part of the resultant state is made visible in the second WAYYIQTOL:
Joshua 7:6 And Joshua ripped (WAYYIQTOL) his mantle and fell (WAYYIQTOL) upon his face to the earth before the ark of YHWH, [and he remained in this condition] until the evening.

The examples of the imperfective aspect given above are all WAYYIQTOLs. I will now give an example showing that the definition of the perfective aspect given by Comrie and others as "a single analysable whole" does not fit Hebrew. The QATAL is inceptive, RT intersects ET at the beginning, and the rest of Isboshet's reign is invisible.
2Sam. 2:10 Ishbosheth son of Saul was forty years old when he became king (QATAL) over Israel.

If you agree with my interpretation of where RT intersects ET in the above examples, we have the same view of what RT is.

Now I will ask you and the other list-members to consider whether RT is different in YIQTOLs and WAYYIQTOLs in the following examples. In other words, are both conjugations imperfective, or is one perfective and the other imperfective?
1 Samuel 1:7 She provoked her (YIQTOL), and she wept (WAYYIQTOL) and did not eat (YIQTOL).
2 Samuel 12:3 But the poor man had nothing except a little ewe lamb that he had bought (QATAL). And he kept it alive (WAYYIQTOL), and it grew up (WAYYIQTOL) with him and with his sons. From his morsel it ate (YIQTOL), and from his cup it drank (YIQTOL), and in his bosom it lay (YIQTOL), and it was (WAYYIQTOL) like a daughter to him. (My comment is that the reason for the YIQTOLs in the last example is that each one is preceeded by a word. If they were clause initial, they would pårobably have been WAYYIQTOLs.)

Lastly, I repeat my question: "Is the perfective aspect grammaticalized in English? In that case, by which form is it expressed?

Rolf, I have always found your expressions "make visible" and "intersect" confusing. I think I am beginning to understand what you mean by them.
I understand now that when you say "part of an event is made visible" you mean what I mean when I say "part of E overlaps R."
When you say "RT intersects ET" you mean what I mean when I say "R overlaps E".

To confirm: do you see RT as a point or a span or interval, or can it be something more complex (like "every weekday at noon")?
How would you describe the difference between deictic centre and reference time?

Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway

[Ken M. Penner]

Rolf, could you use an expression other than "make visible"? That phrase makes it hard for me to understand you.

[R.J. Furuli]

Dear Ken,

There are different views as to what aspect is, but I think there is an universal agreement that aspect represents the subjective viewpoint of the author; some authors even use the term "viewpoint aspect." Therefore I find tha words "make visible" fitting. In some cases the author wants his audience to see the action as a whole without considering the details. In that case he makes the whole action but not any details visible for his audience. In other instances the author wants his audience to see one or more details of the action; therefore we can say that he makes the one or more details visible for the audience.

For example, when I say "In the four hundred and eightieth year ... he began to build the temple," I want my audience to focus on the beginning and a small part of the action and ignore the rest of the building event. Thus, I make visible the beginning and a small part of the action. When I say (literal translation), "Joshua fell upon his face to the earth before the ark of YHWH until the evening," I want the audience to focus on the result of Joshua's fall, namely, the fallen state. Thus I make visible the end of the action and the resultant fallen state. So, RT is the part of ET that the author focuses upon, the part that he makes visible for his audience.

The focus RT represent can be analyzed in three different ways, 1) its angle, its breadth, and its quality. We can illustrate the issue in the following way:

The time between the arrows ——<——————————————>—— = ET
The xx = RT

If we imagine that we stand in front of ET and in its middle, RT will have no angle if we look at the nucleus of ET, or different angles if we look to the left and to the right relative to where we stand.

English has only two options
——<—————xxx———————>—— the nucleus, progressive action
——<———————————————x——— at the end, completed action

Hebrew has several options: The line between the arrows represents ET and the xx represent RT

THE ANGLE OF THE FOCUS (RT)

—xx—<———————————————x——— before the beginning, conative action
——xx———————————————x———beginning and small part of action, ingressive action
——<————xxx————————x———the nucleus, progressive action
——<—————————————xx>—— towards the end, egressive action
——<—————————————xx—— the end and the resultant state, resultative state

BREADTH OF THE FOCUS (RT)

——x———————————————>———the beginning, a point
——<———————————————x———the end, a point
——xxxxxxxxxxxxx——————>———half of ET, a sequence
——xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>———the whole ET

THE QUALITY OF THE FOCUS (RT)

This means that an event can be portrayed as if it is seen from a distance with no details visible, or it can be portrayed as if it is seen close by, with details visible. Please look at 1) —4) below. We assume that all four examples relates to the same event: Liza knocked at the door for ten seconds. Example 1) does not make any details visible; example 2) makes details visible but not all of them; example 3) makes the details visible and the adverbial makes more details visible; example 4) makes no details visible without the adverbial, and this shows that even when the aspect itself does not reveal details, other factors, such as adverbials, can do that. However, in English perfect is tied up with the present moment, and it is very restricted as to the progression that can be seen when the verb is perfect.

1) Liza was knocking at the door
2) Liza has knocked at the door.
3) Liza was knocking at the door for ten seconds.
4) Liza has knocked at the door for ten seconds.

Because the relationship between ET and RT can be analysed in three different ways, and there are two aspects, the aspects in different languages can be compared in six different ways. Regarding Hebrew and English, aspects are similar in three respects and different in three aspects. But because the most important respect (parameter), the angle of focus, is differetn, English and Hebrew aspects are very different.
Conclusion: The author focuses on a small or great part of ET. This part is RT, and this part is what is made visible for the audience, what the author makes them see of the action.

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway

Rolf, could you use an expression other than "make visible"? That phrase makes it hard for me to understand you.

[R.J. Furuli]

Dear Ken,

There are two slips in the last clauses, that I have corrected:


Because the relationship between ET and RT can be analysed in three different ways, and there are two aspects, the aspects in different languages can be compared in six different ways. Regarding Hebrew and English, aspects are similar in three respects and different in three respects. But because the most important respect (parameter), the angle of focus, is different, English and Hebrew aspects are very different.
Conclusion: The author focuses on a small or great part of ET. This part is RT, and this part is what is made visible for the audience, what the author makes them see of the action.

Rolf, could you use an expression other than "make visible"? That phrase makes it hard for me to understand you.

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway

[kwrandolph]

Dear Rolf:

Dear Ken,

There are different views as to what aspect is, but I think there is an universal agreement that aspect represents the subjective viewpoint of the author;

No. “Aspect” refers to an objective measure of time that is different from tense. At least, that’s what I was taught, and is also on the SIL website.

“Tense” refers to the position of an event on a time line in relation to the time the event is referenced, whether past, present or future.

“Aspect” refers to how the time is to be considered: whether as a whole, complete, one-time or completed event (perfective aspect) or whether the duration of the time is important to the reference of the event, whether continuous, repeated, and several other actions (imperfective aspect).

All events have duration, there’s no such thing as an instantaneous event. So for those languages that conjugate for aspect, they conjugate for that duration and whether or not to consider that duration.

For example, when I say "In the four hundred and eightieth year ... he began to build the temple," I want my audience to focus on the beginning and a small part of the action and ignore the rest of the building event. Thus, I make visible the beginning and a small part of the action.

When reading the whole of 1 Kings 6, one finds a mixture of Qatals and Yiqtols all within the same context of building the temple.

When I say (literal translation), "Joshua fell upon his face to the earth before the ark of YHWH until the evening," I want the audience to focus on the result of Joshua's fall, namely, the fallen state. Thus I make visible the end of the action and the resultant fallen state. So, RT is the part of ET that the author focuses upon, the part that he makes visible for his audience.

Let’s translate this verse into linguistic terms—

This event happened prior to its being recorded, hence if Biblical Hebrew conjugated for tense, it would have been conjugated as past tense.

This event is pictured as a whole, one-time event that won’t happen again, which is perfective aspect. Hence if Biblical Hebrew conjugated for aspect, this would have been conjugated as perfective aspect.

The focus RT represent can be analyzed in three different ways, 1) its angle, its breadth, and its quality.

Even after reading the explanation below, the above still doesn’t make sense to me.

We can illustrate the issue in the following way:

The time between the arrows ——<——————————————>—— = ET
The xx = RT

If we imagine that we stand in front of ET and in its middle, RT will have no angle if we look at the nucleus of ET, or different angles if we look to the left and to the right relative to where we stand.

English has only two options
——<—————xxx———————>—— the nucleus, progressive action
——<———————————————x——— at the end, completed action

Hebrew has several options: The line between the arrows represents ET and the xx represent RT

THE ANGLE OF THE FOCUS (RT)

—xx—<———————————————x——— before the beginning, conative action
——xx———————————————x———beginning and small part of action, ingressive action
——<————xxx————————x———the nucleus, progressive action
——<—————————————xx>—— towards the end, egressive action
——<—————————————xx—— the end and the resultant state, resultative state

BREADTH OF THE FOCUS (RT)

——x———————————————>———the beginning, a point
——<———————————————x———the end, a point
——xxxxxxxxxxxxx——————>———half of ET, a sequence
——xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>———the whole ET

THE QUALITY OF THE FOCUS (RT)

This means that an event can be portrayed as if it is seen from a distance with no details visible, or it can be portrayed as if it is seen close by, with details visible. Please look at 1) —4) below. We assume that all four examples relates to the same event: Liza knocked at the door for ten seconds. Example 1) does not make any details visible; example 2) makes details visible but not all of them; example 3) makes the details visible and the adverbial makes more details visible; example 4) makes no details visible without the adverbial, and this shows that even when the aspect itself does not reveal details, other factors, such as adverbials, can do that. However, in English perfect is tied up with the present moment, and it is very restricted as to the progression that can be seen when the verb is perfect.

1) Liza was knocking at the door
2) Liza has knocked at the door.
3) Liza was knocking at the door for ten seconds.
4) Liza has knocked at the door for ten seconds.

Because the relationship between ET and RT can be analysed in three different ways, and there are two aspects, the aspects in different languages can be compared in six different ways. Regarding Hebrew and English, aspects are similar in three respects and different in three aspects. But because the most important respect (parameter), the angle of focus, is differetn, English and Hebrew aspects are very different.
Conclusion: The author focuses on a small or great part of ET. This part is RT, and this part is what is made visible for the audience, what the author makes them see of the action.

Part of the problem is that you and Ken are using RT and ET in different ways, which makes following this discussion very difficult for third parties.

Your “making visible” may be good psychology, or philosophy, but I don’t see how it fits in with linguistics.

Yours,

Karl W. Randolph.

[Schubert]

...
Part of the problem is that you and Ken are using RT and ET in different ways, which makes following this discussion very difficult for third parties.

Your “making visible” may be good psychology, or philosophy, but I don’t see how it fits in with linguistics.

Yours,

Karl W. Randolph.

I agree with these two points made by Karl.

I have no formal training in linguistics but will nonethless be daring and make a few comments on this and similar discussions. From an outside perspective, I see several difficulties with this discussion. First, the use of technical jargon (frequently big abstract nouns) makes any form of writing more difficult to follow and runs the risk of being obtuse. This problem is not unique to linguistics. It occurs in legal academic writing (an area I'm familiar with) as well as other areas of academic writing I've dipped into.

As an aside, in the legal world, the problem of legalese in formal legal documents was recognized probably back in the 1980's when a movement began to write legal documents in plain English. With effort, even complex matters can be expressed in simple English.

A second problem that makes communication difficult is when a writer uses a word or term in a sense which will not be readily understood by the reader. That is a recipe for a failure of communicate.

To use a legal expression, "Those are my submissions", and now perhaps I should duck for cover?