epas.utoronto.ca.
For the important line of inquiry opened up by Bybee and associates:
Bybee could be contacted at jbybeecarina.unm.edu. I would also be
grateful for any book reviews of Smith 1991 and/or Bybee et al 1994.)Editor for this issue: <>
husc.harvard.edu>Hello, Welsh is yet another language with a future progressive tense. Welsh progressives are formed by inflecting the 'bod' (to be) for the relaevant person, number and tense and then the non-finite verb. Note though that Welsh is VSO, so the order is - Bod + Subj DP + yn (Prt) + V. Welsh lso distinguishes progressive and non-progressive futures. (1) Non-Progressive Darlleniff Gwen y llyfr. read-fut-3s G. the book Gwen will read the book. (2) Progressive Bydd Gwen. yn darllen y llyfr will-be G. Prt read the book. Gwen will be reading the book. In addition, it is likely that that Modern Irish and Breton also have some sort of future progressive. However, I am not as fluent in these languages. Hope this is useful. Elizabeth Pyatt Harvard UniversityMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
epas.utoronto.ca>I have been working with the notion of "aspectual default" for a couple of years, and I add the following comments to broaden the perspective on Smith's work. 1. I think first that tense-aspect systems in natural language are highly complex, and that they can be usefully investigated like any other "complex system", ie., the economy or the immune system. (For an entertaining introduction to "complexity", see Waldrop, "Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos", 1992.) The hallmark of such an approach is the interaction of many simple components; in the case of tense-aspect, there is the lexicon, semantics proper, syntax, pragmatics, morphology. Further, in the semantics component we must also deal with tense, mood, and aspect (at the very least). If we further assume that the semantic subcomponents are parameterized a la Chomsky 1981, we can obtain the complexity attested (in principle) and still aim at explanatory adequacy. This view is presented in DeCaen, Forthcoming 1995, "Tenseless Languages in Light of an Aspectual Parameter for Universal Grammar: A Preliminary Cross-Linguistic Survey," Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics; and is applied in my dissertation, 1995, "On the Placement and Interpretation of the Verb in Standard Biblical Hebrew Prose," University of Toronto (forthcoming 1996?, Peter Lang). This work relies heavily on the work of Elizabeth Cowper, who has also proposed a "parameter of aspect". 2. The idea of an aspectual parameter, or a parameter of viewpoint, can be found as early as Comrie 1976, although his comments are not presented in the light of parameterized UG. His "parameter" is based on whether or not a system's simple inflectional forms exclude the progressive. He writes, "In some languages, the distinction between progressive and nonprogressive meaning by means of progressive and nonprogressive forms is obligatory, whereas in others the use of the specifically progressive forms is optional, i.e., the nonprogressive form does not exclude progressive meaning. English [together with Brazilian Portuguese, p. 34] belongs to the first type, so that Progressive and non-Progressive are not in general interchangeable, nor can any one of these in general be replaced by the other; in Spanish and Italian, on the other hand, it is normally possible to replace the Progressive by other forms, without implying nonprogressive meaning." (Comrie, 1976: 33). The notion of defaulting can be found scattered in various places. Chatterjee, 1988, "Aspect and Meaning in Slavic and Indic", touches on latent aspect, e.g., pp.82ff, p.116. Several comments in a work such as Forsyth, 1970, "A Grammar of Aspect", might also be interpreted is such light. Elizabeth Cowper, 1992, "Inner Tense and the Realization of Aspect," ms., paper presented at McGill U., Montreal: she proposes something along the lines of Comrie, but explicitly as claim for UG. "the Hungarian simple past...is best rendered by the English past progressive, while the English simple past must be translated...by the Hungarian perfective form. This difference in the interpretation of accomplishments extends throughout the tense system, so that the Hungarian simple present is best translated by the English present progressive, and the Hungarian future is best translated by the English future progressive. The simple tenses must always be translated by a Hungarian perfective. Suppose that there were a parameter, having to do with the default interpretation of temporal structures. Suppose that whenever possible, Hungarian represents a temporal structure as extending over an interval of time, while English does exactly the opposite: it represents a temporal structure as a point in time whenever possible." Cowper: p.11 of ms. 3. Notice now that this differs from Smith in positing a binary parameter, i.e., minus "neutral" in Smith's system. This raises several questions. First, the binary claim is stronger, and methodologically we should prefer to pursue the stronger claim. (I should add that the binary claim appears sound in cross-linguistic perspective; and further, that the unmarked parameter appears to be that of the English system, ie., perfective, and that the imperfective is largely confined to Europe and Algonquian and Athapaskan systems; moreover, tenseless languages almost universally default for the perfective, hence the mistaken "aspectual" analysis of e.g, Biblical Hebrew, Mohawk, creoles, Mandarin, etc.) Second, what is the basis for the Neutral?? This speaks to the issue of what a "default" is. It is not clear, but it appears that "neutral" is invoked where a parameter setting appears defeasible; but this is what one expects from defaulting: that it can overridden. Since this is the crux, it deserves careful consideration. 4. Cowper's work introduces other factors that could improve the theoretical footing of this line of inquiry. First is the strategy dubbed "strictly compositional", adapted as follows, "Instead of treating constructions atomically, i.e., not making any connection between the lexical representations of the morphemes involved and the meaning of the construction as a whole, assign representations for each of the morphemes involved so that the meanings of the constructions follow automatically, *by simple composition*, from the meanings of the morphemes making them up." adapted from Cowper, 1991, "A Compositional Analysis of English Tense," Proceedings of the 1991 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 53-64, p. 53. 5. in line with strict compositionality, we require explicit morphological and syntactic structures off of which tense-aspect is read "compositionally". Cowper hitches her work to GB-style syntax. So to answer the reviewer's second question, we are led to a d-structure vs s-structure approach. I should hasten to add that pragmatic effects induced by ordering require s-structure (.e.g., a question of ordering with participles in Greek came up on the Bib-Greek discussion group: temporal ordering with participles appears to be affected by relative linear ordering.) 6. the parameter of aspect, to answer the reviewer's first question, is limited to "viewpoint" or grammatical aspect. But parameters are required to handle low-level variation, especially over lexical representations: e.g., verbs of cognition, verbs of motion, and their interaction with the tense and aspect. Usage could be parameterized as well, eg., narrative usage, performatives. 7. work in this line of investigation should now pay explicit attention to issues of grammaticalization and change through time. proposals are more highly valued if they can account for the material, e.g., in Bybee et al, 1994, The Evolution of Grammar. issues of lexical decomposition will probably play a major role in bringing this project in line with the facts of grammaticalization and "pathways." (I would be grateful for references to aspectual default earlier than Comrie 1976. Liz Cowper can be contacted at cowperMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue