RF: Thank you for your quick answers. I do not want to be nitpicking, but have some additional questions.
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?Ken M. Penner wrote:Some quick answers:That expression comes from Comrie. I understand aspect to indicate how the event time and reference time overlap.R.J. Furuli wrote:1) What is the "temporal constituency of a situation"?
What does "overlap" mean? Can you give one or two examples where event time and reference time overlap?
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.R.J. Furuli wrote:2) What is a "complete event"? Is there a difference between a "complete event" and a "completed event"?
I need one or two examples, because the event is said to be "complete," and aspect is a subjective viewpoint.
No.R.J. Furuli wrote: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?
Is the perfective aspect grammaticalized in English? If so, which verb form expresses the perfective aspect?
English perfect is a relative tense, in which E<R=S.R.J. Furuli wrote: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?Could you provide page references to the definitions by Broman Olsen, Reichenbach, and Comrie?R.J. Furuli wrote: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.
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.
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