Verbal aspect: A general theory and its application to present-day English

130

Rc ~'i~'l~ ~

a process of great signiticancc for comparati',c studies, and it v, ill be properl 5 understood only ,a hen examined in its G e r m a n i c context. Van dcr Moor's presentation o1" the m a t e r i a l is a step in the right direction. ~

References

('ampbcll. A.. lq74 Old English grammar. Oxford: ('larendon Press. |lcnlrich. Konnid. 1935. I{m nordfric~,ischcs Ak7cntgcsctz. Zcitschrift f{ir Mundartforr, chung II. 12 17. Kran/mcycr, l!hcrhard. 1956. Ihstorischc I.autgcographic des gcsanitbairischcn l)i,llcktraumcs. (h'az. Koln: tlcrmann B,.:,hlh,lus [.lhcrlnan. Anaiol,,. It),~2. (icrmanic ac.'o2nlolog,,. VO] [. l h c Scandina',ian hlnguagcr,. MlnncapoIt.,. MA: Thc {'ni',crsil.,, of Minnesota press. Norton. Adolf. I ttTO. Ahnordischc (.irarnrnatik. l{ibingcn: Max Nicmc.,,cr. Pial,,chck, Maria cl al.. It~57. I.Iczcichnungcn v,ciblichcr Junglicrc in dculschcr Wortgcographic. Bcitr,ig¢ zur dcutschcn Philologic 13. (.iicsscn: Wilhelm Nchmitz. Sic,.crs. t{duard and Karl Brunncr. It*51..,'Mtcnglischc (iraillm:.itik. It:lilt (Saalc); Max Nlcmc',cr Note

' A ,,ummar', of (i. van dcr Moor's hook is no'.~ a,.ailablc m tin, article "Frisi,m "'breaking"'. .'..O1! I:1.t:" ~. 33 5b (It)g6)

('arl Bache. l(,rDal ,.lsp('(/: .,I .eem'ra/ //u'orr and E n v l M r ()dense. Odense l_lnivcrsitv Press. 1985. £ 12.95. Rcxiewcd by R. Salkie, l)ept of I.anguage Studies, Brighton. BNI t)PN, tJK. and klcultt~ ties l.ettres Poitiers, France.

lt.~ ~q~plhalion to lWC.~('#ll-~ht.l i ~ + 3 3 7 pp. r):m. kr. 13(h00. Brighton Polytechnic. I"almer, et tics I.;.nlgues. Universit~ de

( ' o r p u s - b a s e d studies o1" English by Scandina',ians arc often nol highly regarded b.', theoretical linguists, especially when they ha,,e tile term "prcscnt-day" in the title. A n v o n c whose prt~iudiccs lead them to ignore this book, though, will bc making a big mistake. Carl Bachc has made his mark m the stud} of tense and aspect by publishing tv, o interesting and original papers m Journal el kingui.stic~ (Bathe 1982,1985). The be, ok under rc,,icv, is an e l a b o r a t i o n of the ideas put forth in these papers. Bache's aim is to construct metalinguistic categories of tense, aspect and Aktionsart which can be mstantiated in the grarnrnars of individual languages. His m e t h o d is to start with a hirtguagc in \,. hich the existence of the category of aspect is firmly cstablishcd (a "subject language'} and build tip a set of rnctalinguistic categories arid rchttions purely on the basis of such ,t htngu:tge. B a t h e then turns to, an "object htnguagc', a language which is

Revicu~

131

regarded as aspectual by some but not all linguists, and examines ~hether the categories and relations in the metalanguage apply in this hmguage. If they apply in a similar enough way. and if the rcsuhant analysis of tile object hmguage yields vseful insights, then we arc justitied in believing (a) that the metalanguagc has some validit}, and (b) that the object hmguage indeed has aspect. Bathe takes Russian as his subject-language and English as his object-language. It is well-known that thc choice of aspect in Russian can have a variety of semanticpragmatic etfects. While many scholars have naturall}, looked for a single meaning that is basic to each aspect, previous proposals of this kind have tendcd to be vague and or to leave a rcsidt,c of unexphfincd problem cases. The v,ay Bathe lights his wa} through this semantic jungle is simple in hindsight, like man',, cle,,.er ideas, and exlremcly effective. He distinguishes lbur different kinds of constructions inw, lving aspect. corresponding to tile terminal nodes in the flaree-member feature hierarch} shown in tigure I. - opposed ', TYPE III) substitutable', TYPE 1)

CONSTRUCTIONS

-

distinctive{ TYPE 11)

opposed l + substitutable',

distinctive: (TYPE IV) -

The features all rclatc to what happens if )ou construct minimal aspcctual pairs by systematically changing the aspect of a corpus of Rt, ssian sentences. [-opposed] constructions are those where lhis procedure cannot be carried out: for example. ~ here a perfective verb simply does not have an imperfective counterpart, tk~r examplc skoneat'.~ja "to die'. ruxnut" "to collapse'. Most Russian verbs do form aspectual pairs: the}' are [ +opposed]. If the change in aspect leads to ungrammaticality, the construction is said to be [ - substitutable]. An example is: (la) Kakd~j den" budu pokupat" xleb v (}tom magazine "i shall buy (ipfv.) bread in this shop evcry day." (I b) *Ka2dyj dcn" kuplju xleb ~ t}toln magazine "l shall buy (pfv.) bread in this shop ever}' day." This is the most comrnon type of construction in Russian. If the change does not lead to ungrammaticality, the construction is [ + substitutable]. Bathe then distinguishes two

t', pe~, o1[ + sub~,titutahlc I constructions. If the change of aspect results m a diit'crence o f 1oil';c or Akiion~art. Ihe conslrucliori is i ! distinclivcl. Siiice the prcsctlt pcrfectixc in Russian notmall,, has future time rcl'crence, examples like the t\fllo\~ mg are I • dislinc-

d~cl: (2~1) Mitril'i:.i (~qi0us) tihiracl konlilatU "~.|aril'14 is (no',~,) lid)in.,_, I i p f v . ) h e r roonl." l i b ) '%,lLilill;.i ubercl konln41ti "\'|arilla is going to lid} (pl\.l her rool'n." If lhc chllngc of aspect leads to no chaili/e o1" nlc411ing, or on]\. to changes Ih4t do not i n \ o l \ c len~c alld Aklions.:ul log. sl} listk' ones), the Pair o1" scntcncc~ is [ - d i ~ I m c i i v c l . txumplcs ;.ire : (.~;.l) Sile~ r~oslepenno Z4tlletal tlorogti "The sno~ graduall$ blocked up Ipl\.) ihc road." (.~b) ,~llcg poslepcnih'i /;.iill{~l Uorogl.i (4at "Ja Pl-idu" sk4/al on ""I shall come", he said (pl'~.)." 14b) ".la pridu" go~oril Oil. Bathe proposes lhal "b~lsic Ille~.lIliIlgS" should be assigned Io lhe aspecls on the basis oI" I dislmcli~eI conslructiom,, since these are "construclions ',~,here we find the pcrl'ective" imperl'ecti\c opposition a! its purest" (p. 125). The olher lypes of construction can {hen bc analysed in terms, o1" ~ha! he call,~ "categorial interpla,,': the interaction o1" aspect ~ilh tcrlse and Aklionsart. Bathe thus distinguishes I ~ o lc~ ¢ls o1"illcaning of 7ramnlalical categories like :.lspecl: a 'dcfinilioif level arrived al on lhc basis of l ttislincli~el consHtlClions, aod ~i "l'unclion" level ~h01c inlcrpla} b0t~,cen i.ispecl, and other ci.ile}jories accourlts for tile other three types of conslruclJon. This is an elegant ,,va,, of app~ro;.lching the problelll ot" ~llcl.hcr tile cispecls are nlonosenlalltic or nol. Bachc's procedure ob~ iouslv depends orl satisfaclor) definitions o1" file three calegories in lhc i11chllangti~i7¢, tic calls lhe riolioil:i] valtics of lense. Aklionsarl and aspecl icspecli~01) l e n l p o i a l i l ) , clciionalii~ cind aspcctualil).. Tcnlporality is defined as "the chronological location o1" .;i siltl;.ition referred to rclali~c Io tile time COlllCXl rccokmiscd :is "'ihc preseill'" al. the llionlcnl of colnnltinicalit~n" (p. 10]). A c l i o n a l i i ) i s detincd cis "the proccdtlr~il characlerisiics of a situaliorl referred to" (p. 109). I~ache (llJ~]) had argued slrOllgl.\ thai ClSpet.'tand Aklionsarl arc scparale, showing 0let a t h e o r ) l i k e ihal of ('omrie (1976). ~.heic cispecl is extended to cover .4klionsarl. is incohercnl./~¢lionalit\ in~ol~cs 'ihc organisalion of Ihc phase~, reeking tip ttlc situalion', nanlel', lhe beginning, tile middle, lhc end. alld "~,ub-sittialions o1 another, nlor0 comprcilensi~c silualion" (p. 109). This gi~o,~ rise Io six l)pes of situations, corresponding Io the lernlinal nodes oI" tile IkHM~ing fi'~¢-nlenlbcr I'eilll.lr¢ hierarchy: shown JiG figure ].

133

Revwws

ACTIONALITY

[ complexit.',

L simplicity

F telicncss

ACTIONALITY

direction

hc,mogcneily ~,;cl[-¢ontainnlcnt

Fig 2. A verbal construction is [ ~- ACTIONAL] if its rcferent is "situationally tangible" if it can be conceived as something which "takes place" or "happens'. ()therwise it is [ - A C T I O N A L ] . This corresponds to the distinction between what Bathe. tbllowing Comrie. calls 'dynamic situations' (I prefer the term "events') and "states': states, being [ - ACTIONAI.]. are simply outside the category of Aktionsart altogether. Continuing down the feature hier~trchy, a situation is C O M P L E X if it contains subsituations. SIMPLE constructions express a single occurrence of a situation (of. the traditional term "scmelfactive'). An example of a C O M P L E X situation is: (5) Ona ka~dyj den" pisala emu pis'mo "She wrote (Ipfv.) him a letter each day." SIMPLE constrtictions branch into I ~ U N C T U A L "without internal phasal structure" (p. l l l ) and DURAT1VE. "conceived of as having extension in time'. The latter subdivide into TELl(" situations. ,,,,here the terminal phase of the situation "is conceived of as more important than the other phases" (p. 112). and I I O M O G E N E O U S . where the terminal phase is not thus highlighted. TEI.IC situations typically involve the perfective in Russian. as in: (6)

Ivan Proeital 6tu knigu i leg spat" "Ivan {finished) read(ing) this book and went to bed."

H O M O G E N E O U S branches into I ) I R E ( ' T E I ) . which relates to constructions which tend towards "a critical point or goal outside the referential scope of the construction" (p. 113). and SELF - C O N T A I N E D . where there is no such critical point. An example o1" a S E L F - C O N T A I N E D situation is: (7) On Progostil okolo dvux nedel" "lie stayed with us about two weeks." The English example above "He reigned for thirty years" is also treated by Bathe as S E L F - C O N T A I N E D : he describes these examples as ""situationally tangible" stative or static situations, i.e., states represented as having a definite (and thus limited) extension on the time axis" (p. 113).

134

Rmic~

1 ha~c described Bachc's discussion of actionalitv in some detail because it seems to file It} be an etlornlottN adv.itnce on pre'~ious v, ork. In parlicular, the distinctions bet~ecn TEl.It," and D I R E C T E D . and bct~vecn staten and S E I . F - ( , ' O N T A [ N I ! D situations, are important clarifications. Baehc ;.lckt/tw~.ledges that his categories of tense and aspect are quite traditional (the origmaliix I,, mg in the ~,;t,,' the calegorics interact ). but his catcgor', of Aktionsart breaks nwa: ground, it seems to inc. As we have seen. Bathe proposes to delinc aspect initiall\ on the basin o1"[ - dJstinclixe] constructions (el'. (3) and (4) abo',ck lie taken examples like (3) as suggesting the notional basin of aspcctualit.\ in tern> of ""silttational I'octts". the pcrfcctivc conMrttclions lk~cusing ,.m the situation as a unilied cntil', and tile irnpcrfcctive l\)cusing on the situation aN an intcrmtll 5 complex entity" Ip. 126). This has nothing to tit} ~.ith the actionalil,, of the constru.ction, h o ' a c v c r , but c, nl,,. ~ith "the I\~ct,s with ~hich the addresser reprcsentN the situation" (;-~. 126). Bathe says that (.'on'lric's distinction hell, con the pcrtk-cti~c aN h>okmg at the sitt,ation "from the outside" and the imperlk'cti,,c which looks at it "from the inside" ( ( o m r i c (1976: 127) iN adcqt,ate, as long as aspect iN distinguished from Aktionsarl (~hich Comric does not d o l l More precisely. perfcctixily iN delincd ~tN "focus or1 the boundaries of the Nittl;ttion without cxplicit rel'crence to the progression of t h e s i t u a l i o n ' l p . 12g) that is. focus on theinitial and terminal phases o1" a situation v, hilc impcrlE'ctjvil.', is defined as "l\'~ctts on the progression of the situation withoul explicit rel~'rencc to the boundaries of the situation'(p. 12g) that iN. focus o n the m i d d l e p h a s c s o f a situation. Bathe taken examples like (4) its giving a cluc to markcdness rela|tions within the category of aspect. The imperfcctive <4hi is unlnarked it has no special focus at all and iN hence [ - A S P E ( , [ I :ALl. The perfcclive 14a) presents the situation referred to "emphatically as a ~hole'. aN a "unilied entitx" (p. 126). and is [ - A S P E C I U A L I. Bathe stresses that perl'ccli~il)does not exclude internal complexit,, of a situation: this i.', shown b.', the possible use of the perfccti~c with the adverbial l,O.~tcpcmzo "gradually" in exl, mple (.t)above. Nor is imperfectix.it,,, incompatible v.ith an indication of the beginning and end of the situation, as shw,vn b',: (8)

On 2il tri goda x Moskvc "He li',ed (lpl'v.) in Moscmv I\~r three "~ears."

These examplcs, i~lachc clainas, .justify hiN strict distinction between aspect and Aktionsart.

Bathe looks next al the l'tlnction le',el of aspccluul meaning, v, here there is catcgorial interpla', between aspect, tense and Aktionsarl. lie proposes a number of formulas v, herc a feature of tense or Aktionsarl determines a feature of aspect. As far as tense is concerned, there iN only one important case in Rt, ssian: Present lime meaning ~.~.hill Bathe calls [+simuhancous] temporality, to make it clct, r thai the restriction is notional, not I\~rmal iN incompatible ,xith perfectivity: i.e.. it determines the feature [ .-perfcctive]. I'lachc comments: "The terminal phase of a situation required Ii}r

Rerh,w~'

135

perfective focus never dwells hmg enough in the present moment to inspire a simultaneous representation: it either belongs to the past or the future, or else must be associated with modal or non-temporal meaning" (p. 133). There is a flaw in the argument here, however. Bathe explicitly says that the present is "a forever moving instant or period" (p. 103). If the present can be a period, therc is no reason why it cannot encompass the terminal phase of a situation. One can perhaps accept that the present cannot encompass it terminal state that results from an event, ,ahich would explain why the present is incompatible with [ + directed] actionality. But the restriction as stated does not "follow logically from our general detinitions of the vah.es of tense and aspect' (p. 133), as he claims. ICf. Dahl 11985: 81)), who notes several languagcs ,,',here the pcrfective can be used m the present tense.) The interplay between Aktionsart and aspect is more complex. Bathe gives the tbllowing formulas, where ".v • r" is to be read as "ifx is chosen then y must bc chosen tOO" :

(ga) (9h) {9c) 19d) (tic) (9t3

- A C T I O N A L1TY +complexity + punctuality +telicness +direction -direction

.... ASPECTUAI,ITY ---+ imperfcctivity ---* perfectivity ~ perfectivity ---+ imperfectivity ---, perfectivity OR imperfectivity

Bathe argues again that these formulas follow "more or less logically from our definitions of the values involved" (p. 139). States are naturally presented without any "situational fl3cus', so they select the aspectual form which can be unmarked for aspect: as Bache puts it. "that - A C T I O N A L I T Y requires non-aspectt,ality [that is. selects the unmarked imperfective. RMS] is only a natural consequence of its situational vagucness" (p. 139). Turning to the other formulas in (9a-f). it is clear that [+ punctual] situations, which have no internal structure, and [ + telic] situations, where the emphasis is on the terminal phase, would be expected to select the perfective aspect. Similarly, [t-directed] situations, which emphasise the progression of a situation, go with the inlperfective, as do [+complex] ones. As for (913, this results from the fact that [.- direction] is "the most neutral of the actional values" (p. 139). To complete his melalinguistic characterisation of aspect, Bathe looks at how aspect interacts with tense and Aktionsart in [~-distinctive] and [-substitutable] constructions. The most important tormulations are the following: lf a perfective verb in a [ + relic] construction is replaced by its imperfective partner, the construction becomes either [+complex] or [±directed] (p. 143). A [+ punctual] construction changes in the same way. An ipfv. [°r directed] or [+ complex] construction becomes either [+ telic] or [ +-punctual] when the pfv. is substituted. Bache suggests that the [ - o p p o s e d ] verbs in Russian also fall into place in his framework. Unpaired imperfectives like naxodit ',,~ja"to he located" are typically stative,

136

R~'~ icu.~

that is. [ - A ( ' T I ( ) N A I . ] . ~hilc unpaired pcil'ecli;cs like rexme" "to collapse" are tyl'licall.~ [ t ptinctiua[ i. l-le notes thai "these {llC exlienlo opposites I'rolll :.ill ;.ICtioilcl] point of ',ie~. non-acticmciliti+; being Ihe \agtleSl :.ind lecisi tangible ~,:.lltic and punctunlit) being Ihe most concentruted and forcel'ul ~cilue" Ip. 144). t|:.i~ing lhus set tip in., general tiheor), of tense, aspecl ;.intt i\klJonsurt. I?,ache tuvns his title>it>ion It> English. The t~vo prJnla faeJo CdlldJdalcs for aspccluul t.'alegorios in English :Ave the porlccl and the plt:,~io~,si;e (llache ti:.,os the to're "expandcd I'orm" Iov ihc laltier, following Jospovsen. btil I shall I'c)llo~ the m a j o r i l ) o f eurlCilt ~,~,rJler:,;;.ind use tihc leVnl "pvogvessJve'). Itciche takcs gre;.lt p;.lins to ,iVgtle that the t]nglish perfect does not insl,intJate lhc c;.tl0~ov% of ;.>spOol. :.ill utlstll'pi'Jsillg conclusion, btll hc s;.l,,s st)nlo irlterestiirig things about tile perfect cind tile plupevfccti Oil file ~tl',' (pp. 19,"4 207), ~ tfich I t.'onlnlend It) all\one Sttldvin,, these I'olllls. More inlrlovtianl hevc is B,lcilc's coilcltision th~iti lhc plogressi;e ilt)n-pi-ogvessi\e oppo~ilion does inst:.inti~lte Ihe cciticgorv of uspeel. He begins b; claiming tihal the replticcnlcnl pvocedtlle. \~,here Ihe simple I\)Vlll is replaced b; lhe pvogvessive and vice~ersa. leads It) tile S;.lllle I'otlV constvtletion t',pes ;.is ill RtlsSJiln. The mo~l prohlc'nlaliC claim is thai SelltiellCeS in the simple prescnl ~ith own, hchmg ;.illtt I>cliun,. and in tile presClll proglessi~e ~ith tw .c,,ml~ t<, :.llld/~l, dl.i,,i,c, t<~. :ave [ - o p p o s e d l (p. 207): thai is. the l\)rnler glOtlp simpl,, do 11OI h;.l;e pi-ogvessi;e p;./lllleVS alld the latter Icick ilOllprogressi;e COUllterp;.tvtis. Ilachc vecognises that> this is a hit hard to s~al]o~,~ since It is quite possible to construct parlilers I]>v tihese expvcssit)ns; the I.lct thai those partinevs tire ill-ft)vnled suggests thcit [ substittttablc] naight bc a bettor chavacterisatJon+ Baehe's solutiion is It) make a distinction bctv,een the "l\)rlnal potential" of tile ~eih s', Men1 and "~lCitl;.i[ i.is0.ge', in ~ hich ~,ClbS like lies and should be tlcaled as cxceptiorls. In the examples of [ - substJtiulable I and [ ) distincti~c] constructions that Ilache discusses, the challgc llonl simple to progressive t)r \ ice VelSa le;.lds m nlosl cilscs to ;.1 change in Aktionsart. Where this change is meompalible with the vest of tile sentences v~c get [-stlbslili_ltiable] pairs, like (lfl); where it is eolllpatible v~e get [4-distincti\c] pairs like (II): (1()) G o o d mornmg to you, Mr. I)e;uli. My. K ~ e n / i is .just linishmg lain hieakfa~,i, and ;~ill join us in good time. (*... Mr. K,,venzijust tlnishes ...) (p. 209) I [ 1) t h e vicar has, senti men tit) sealch along tiov,:.ivds ('havnlouth. She ;~.;.ilks there. on the cliffs. (... Stlc is ~.alking tihere, on tihe cliffs ...I Ip. 21[i)

Review~

137

Bathe presents similar examples in the past tense for these three construction types. As with the Russian data., hov.'ever, it is the [ -distinctive] constrt,ctions which Bathe sees as the key' to the system. His conclusion here is that the opposition is mainl.,, one of "intensity and vividness', which is rclaled to his detinition of aspect "in that intensity and vividness presuppose a concern for the situation, tin internal focus, whereas lhctuality and detachment prest, pposc an emotional distance from tile situation, and thus vn external focus" (p. 213). Some examples: (12) QPR midfielder Ton', Currie takes over its captain in the F.A. cup tinal replay on Thursday. (QPR midlielder Tony Currie takes over...) (p. 21 I) 13) Well. you're looking pretty impossible to me right now. (Well. you look pretty impossible to me right now.) (p. 211) 14) He imposed his presence on me. then camc slo,alv down the room to the table. stood centrally and regally behind it for another long moment, then moved to the extreme left end. By that time 1 had noted the black gloves, the black shoes beneath the black soutane-like smock he ',~.ore. (... he was wearing.) (p. 219) 15) As soon as 1 woke up I began to have more sensible ideas, it's just like me to see only the dark side last thing at night and to ~ake up different. These ideas came while 1 was having breakfast, not deliberate, they just came. About how I could get rid of the body. (... w h i l e l had breakfast ...) (p. 219) In analysing these examples the way he does. Bathe is at odds ,,~ith most current work on the progressive. Most linguists treat the progressive as lk~ct,ssing on an mtermcdiate stage of an event, and would take the ett'cct of vi,,idness as derivative from this. Bache puts things the other way round, deriving tile fintermediate stage" idea from the "presentational focus" of the progressive. An example that supports Bache's views is:

(16) "What did she say?" "That she's just heard the prince is coming. That's why she's calling his name so often" (... that's why she calls his namc so often.") (p. 232) Bathe rightly points out that the context here rules out tile habitual interpretation for Ls calling:call,s. This is important, since in many cases the distinction between the simple present and the present progressive is habitual:non-habitual (of. She smokes.,she i.s ,smokin~). h's not clear that the analysis of the progressive its indicating "an intermediate stage of tin event" helps at till with (16). Bache's account, which sees the simple form as ofl'ering "a dctachcd, neutral description" while the progressive offers "a ~ivid and more intense dcscription" (p. 233), handles this example nicely.

138

Ruvicu

Bathe's, general conclus,ion from his [ distincti~cl examples, in that tile progres,sixc does h4ve "a cle:.ir notional uflinitx" (p. 2571 with the specification of aspcct in the nletal4nguagc. The progres,si\e is, positively markect cls impcrfccti~e. ~hilc the s,imple I~~im is "illore t)i les,s aspectually neutral" in lhe /~res,eilt lellse but "often aSstlnlcs it clearl 3 perl'cciive-likc quulil.,," m the past (p. 25S). Thus tile markedncss relations, in English and Russian aspect arc diltL'rcnt, m Bathe's, xiex~. l urniilg iloxv to [ - dis,lincti,,c] aild I substilut.tlblc] constructions,. B:.lChe's, task is, to s,ho~ thai the interactions helx~een ;is,peel. lense and Aktionsart are similar in Englis,h Io those he found in Rus,siun. l.ooking lhs,t lit tens,c, x~c saw a b m e thai prcsent-timc nleanillg v,:.ls, incompatible ~ith perl'cciiviiy. This is, true of English Ioo: tile simple present (perfcctive in Bache's anal.,,s,is,) is not normall\ used to describe e,,ents, taking place in front of tile speaker's, eyes,, l h e kcb difference is that in English tllc s,imple present has a [ - A ( T I ( ) N A I . I i.e. sialixc valuc I.lauk p l a w rrirlr cx~_illlpic, sporls coi'llnlenl:.uJcs, (ahhough I think thai the killer l).pc are bes,l treated :.is stuti\e too. for rcils,ons discuss,cd in Salkie ( IC.1142:ch. 4). and Iknttlcoming). ()n ,,41klionsarl. Bathe Ilas, liille iroubh." in lhlding panlllels, m Imglis,h 1o the corres,pondcnces he [\)l.ind in Rus,silin. I"or lhc I'ornlulatioll the.it a [ • dirccled] construelion becomes, I+ielicl or I , ptinciual I ~hen C]langed I'it)lll the impcrfcctive I~ Ihc pcrl'cctJve, wc have the ~ ell-kno~n cl.)iilrasls I~l..'l\% c e l l 1I(" il u.~/>uiDIm
Rm'h,~.v

139

Dahl (1985) reaches conclusions which conflict with Bathe in a number of ways. Dahl treats PFV: IPFV and PROG sis two quite distinct cross-linguistic categories. He argues that the PERFECTIVE IMPERFE('TIVE opposition "is strongly correlated ,aith the distinction between past and non-past time reference': that the progressixe is rarely extended to habitual meaning; thal the progressive is normally not used l\'~r slatives: and that PROG 'is rather consistently marked periphrastically', while the PFV: IPFV opposition is marked in "less straightforward" ways (It185:92 93). Perhaps even more seriously. Dahl argues that the Slavonic languages arc not protot,,pical aspect languages but dilfer as a group from the ma.jorit~, of languages m his extensive sample which base the PFV: IPFV opposition. This calls into question Bache's decision to take Russian its his "subject language', his starting point for setting up a metalinguistic category of aspect. (,)n the other hand. Dahl concedes that "the cases which distinguish IPFV ~,nd PROG are relatively restricted in frequency', and gixes exs,mples where a category has shifted dil, chronically from one to lhc other (I 985: ~)3). I think that Bathe could answer some of these points. The dill'erenccs v,'ith respect to statives and habituals could well bc covered by markedness xariations in difl'erent languages, given Bache's proposal that these meanings, being unmarked for Aktionsart. will select the unmarked aspect in a given language. As t\3r the relation between PFV: IPFV and tense. Dahl notes that languages vary a lot in this respect (1985: 80). The basic distinction may be between languages such sis Russian and English. where the perfcclive cannot normall~ be used ~sith present time mel, ning. and languages which do not have this restriction. It seems that Russian and English sire typologicall', unusual in this respect. This would mean that Bathe is justified in his use of these two languages as subject language and object language in his book. but that the metalinguistic categories and their interactions would need to be moditied when the,,' arc extended to other languages. Ha',ing pointed out some conflicts between Bathe and other recent work. it is worth correcting the balance and pointing out that his conch,sions seem to tit in reasonably well with the typology of aspect systems proposed by ("hung and Timberlakc (1985:239 240). Although from Bache's perspective. ("hung and Timbcrlake conflate aspect and Aktionsarl - their detinition of aspect refers to the relation between an event and its temporal frame, which is close to Bache's conception of Aktionsart they agree with him completely in terms of markedncss rclations, proposing that perfectivc is 'the narrowly defined category" in Russian while the progressive is the narrowly defined category in English. In their framework, English and Russian are the two opposite ends of the spectrum, with the situation less clear in other hmguages. Languages like Mokilese and Margi. which appear to have both a PFV: IPFV distinction and a progressive, will be problems l\~r this typology, as indeed they xvill for Bache's claim that these language-specific categories are both instantialions of the same metalinguistic category. To conclude, this book is essential reading R)r any linguist working on aspect. It is not an easy read: the book is printed direct from typescript, which makes it tiring on

References