Tense and Aspect (and Mood and Aktionsart and Voice) 1 History 2
Werbung
ParGram 10: Tense and Aspect
1
Tense and Aspect
(and Mood and Aktionsart and Voice)
ParGram 10, Konstanz
Update with help from Veronika Walther and input from Nazareth Kifle (Tigrinya)
1
History
Discussions about the proper repressentation of Tense/Aspect have been taking place almost since
the inception of ParGram. For a while, it was decided to leave a difficult subject alone and just use
features like PROG +, PERF + since especially Sequence of Tense phenomena are very hard to do
with just syntactic information.
With the expansion of ParGram to other languages, the question about a universal blueprint for
TAM (Tense/Aspect/Mood) marking became more urgent. In particular, the Malagasy grammar
requested some guidance with respect to the possible feature space.
A tense/aspect committee was constituted. Memebers were Ingo Mittendorf, Miriam Butt and
Louisa Sadler. A first proposal was presented at Oxford in the Fall of 2006.1 This proposal was
revised in light of discussions at the ParGram meeting, an unscheduled meeting in the Elm Tree
Pub (Oxford), where we profited from input by Anette Frank and Tracy King. Further experiments
and research by Ingo also informed the proposal.
Following discussions at the Spring 07 ParGram meeting at Stuttgart, a further revision of the
proposal was made. The first revision can be found under Appendix B, the second in Appendix C.
An overview of the changes can be found below, integrating newer stuff from Urdu and Tigrinya.
In particular, having a representation that was closer to semantics, i.e., in terms of Reichenbachian
tense/aspect semantics as realized in DRT was rejected. Just for the record, what the system would
be is nevertheless given in section 2.1.
Since then the Urdu grammar was directed to experiment with the representation of Tense/Aspect.
A sketch of the current state can be found in section 4, but more detailed work needs to be done.
Further considerations that were talked about are included in the next section as well.
2
Considerations about Tense/Aspect
2.1
Reichenbachian Relations
• All Reichenbachian temporal relations are grouped under T- REL (temporary name). What
was TENSE is now T- REL R - S. What was ASPECT is now T- REL E - R. Possibly one may need
1
The original proposal can be found under Appendix A.
ParGram 10: Tense and Aspect
2
another feature REL - TENSE. Both R - S and E - R have the same complex values T- REL - TYPE
(very temporary name) and T- REL - DIST[ance].
• Mapping from Morphology to Pseudo-Semantics: based on Ehrich’s (1992) DRT version of
the basic Reichenbachian oncepts E, R and S.
Tense: S (Speech Time) and R (Reference Time)
Aspect E (Event Time) and R
Roughly:
Tense
SR
R<S
R>S
ER Present Past
Future
E < R Perfect Past Perfect Future Perfect
E>R
This system is roughly as proposed by Vikner, used by DRT and Giorgi and Pianesi.
2.2
Aspect vs. Aktionsart
Die A[ktionsart] steht in enger Beziehung zur verbalen Kategorie →Aspekt, eine in
der Morphologie mancher Sprachen grammatikalisierte Kategorie. So verfügen z.B.
die meisten Verben im Engl. weitgehend unabhängig von ihrer inhärenten A[ktionsart]
über eine einfache und eine progressive Form: I sing / I am singing, vgl. →Progressiv.
Im Unterschied zu Aspekt wird A[ktionsart] als lexikalisch-semantische, in der Verbbedeutung ,,objektiv“ verankerte Kategorie behandelt. Die Verwandtschaft zwischen den
beiden verbalen Kategorien zeigt sich darin, daß die Bildung verschiedener Aspektformen durch die A[ktionsart] des Verbs gesteuert wird. So können im Engl. Zustandsverben keine progressive Form bilden, vgl. *I am knowing. Im →Russischen
zeigt sich eine Überlagerung der A[ktionsart]-Unterscheidung zwischen durativen Verben (spat ,schlafen‘, zit ,wohnen‘, sidet ,sitzen‘) und nicht-durativen Verben (aufwachen, finden, sterben) durch die Aspektunterscheidung zwischen perfetiven und →Imperfektiven Verbalformen. Im allgemeinen haben durative Verben aber je eine imperfektive und eine perfektive Variante, vgl. Imp. vs. Perf. in probuzdat’sja/probudit’sja
,aufwachen‘, naxodit/najti ,finden‘ und umirat/umeret ,sterben‘. Diese Befunde führen
sowohl zu kontroversen Systematisierungsvorschlägen als auch zu zahlreichen terminologischen Überschneidungen, so daß viele Ansätze (insbesondere nicht-deutsche)
A[ktionsart] unter ,,Aspekt“ behandeln.
(Hadumod Bußmann, Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft, 2nd ed., Stuttgart: Kröner,
1990, pp. 59-60)
Quick and dirty translation:
Aktionsart is closely related to the verbal category →aspect, a category grammaticalised in the morphology of some languages. Thus most verbs in English have, independent of their inherent Aktionsart, a simple and a progressive form: I sing / I am
ParGram 10: Tense and Aspect
3
singing, cf. → Progressive. Unlike aspect, Aktionsart is treated as a lexico-semantic
category, “objectively” anchored in the meaning of a verb. The close relationship between the two verbal categories shows up in the fact that the formation of different aspect forms is governed by the verb’s Aktionsart. Thus in English, stative verbs cannot
have a progressive form, cf. *I am knowing. In →Russian there is an overlap between
the Aktionsart distinction between durative verbs (spat ‘sleep’, zit ‘live’, sidet ‘sit’)
and non-durative verbs (wake up, find, die) [on the one hand] and the aspect distinction between perfective and →imperfective verb forms [on the other hand]. However,
in general each durative verb has an imperfective and a perfective variant, cf. imp. vs.
perf. in probuzdat’sja/probudit’sja ‘wake up’, naxodit/najti ‘find’ and umirat/umeret
‘die’. These facts lead to controversial systemisation proposals as well as to numerous
terminological overlaps, so that many approaches (particularly non-German ones) deal
with Aktionsart under “aspect”.
We would like to maintain this distinction between lexico-semantic Aktionsart and morphosyntactic Aspect.
This does not mean that the features currently appearing under EV- STR (aka Aktionsart) should
go, but that EV- STR should not be a sister feature of ASPECT but a daughter, alongside ( EV) EXECUTION, on the understanding that we are talking about something morphosyntactic here
(i.e., Aspect in the Bußmann/“German” sense), not something lexico-semantic (i.e., Aktionsart in
the Bußmann/German sense). One probably should also consider replacing EV- STR with a less
semanticky term.
ParGram 10: Tense and Aspect
3
4
Current Rough Proposal for the Common Feature Space
A fairly rough version of the current proposal is shown in (1).
(1) Current (Rough) Version:
TENSE
TAM
VOICE
TENSE - DIST
ASPECT
ASPECT- DIST
VIEWPOINT
MOOD
h
pres/past/fut/non-past/non-fut
h
i
i
neutral/remote/immediate
PERF
+/−
IMPERF +/−
+/−)
h ( PROG
i
neutral/remote/immediate
h
imperfective/perfective
i
h
indicative/subjunctive/conjunctive(?)/imperative/hortative/optative
+/−
ITER - DUR +/−/iter/dur
HASTY
+/−
DEIXIS
away/towards
HABITUAL +/−
EV- EXEC
CONT
+
DUR
long
HAB
−
ITER
+
STATIVE +/−
INIT
+/−
EV- STR
PROCESS +/−
RESULT
+/−
evidential
mirative
certain
EV- VALUATION
quotative
inferential
" willful
#
unspec/deontic/epistemic/potential/desiderative/permissive/
MODALITY
truth prop/assertive/emphasis
ACTOR / UNDERGOER / LOCATIVE / BENEFACTIVE / INSTRUMENTAL / PASSIVE / MIDDLE
PASSIVE
+ /−
PASSIVE - TYPE
personal/impersonal/adversative
h
i
+/dir-refl/indir-refl/caus-refl/anti-caus
MIDDLE - TYPE
EXTEND
i
ParGram 10: Tense and Aspect
3.1
Unresolved Questions
• Conditional?
• Japanese concessive?
• German FUT?
• Turkish Refl/Recip?
• Sanskrit Aorist?
• Does PASSIVE + have to go?
4
Urdu
Current situation in Urdu:
• CHECK
– VMORPH [MTYPE infl]
– RESTRICTED –
– VFROM bare/impf/perf
– AUXFORM perf
– AUXcont + (if ‘raha’)
– AUXiter + (if ‘jAnA’)
• LEX-SEM
– AGENTIVE +
– CAUSATIVE direct/indirect
– GOAL +
– VERB-CLASS ingestive/ingestive-plus
Questions/Comments:
• Do we need GOAL?
• Add unerg and unacc and others to VERB-CLASS.
5
ParGram 10: Tense and Aspect
6
• TNS-ASP
– ASPECT perf/impf/prog
– MOOD indicative
– TENSE pres/past/fut
– CONT + (‘cala/jAnA/raha’)
– DUR long (long duration)
– HAB – (not habitual)
– ITER + (iteration)
– WILLFUL +
– PROB + (probability, e.g. Fut II ‘nAdiyah nE yAsIn kO mArA hOgA’)
CONT, DUR, HAB and ITER should go to event execution.
WILLFUL and PROB are really event-valuation.
Note that event-execution and event-valuation can be empty, since they provide extra information
on an event.
• an example that shows most of the new features:
‘nAdiyah bOltI calI jA rahI he’
• where does PROB + come up?
‘nAdiyah nE yAsIn kO mArA hOgA’
ParGram 10: Tense and Aspect
7
ParGram 10: Tense and Aspect
8
Appendix A: Original Proposal
(2)
TAM
VOICE
{
MOOD
TENSE
h
indicative/subjunctive/conjunctive(?)/imperative/hortative/optative
"
#
R-S
overlap/precede/follow/overlap precede (?)
DISTANCE neutral/remote/immediate
OR
REL - TENSE
h
R-R
E-R
precede/follow/overlap
i
}
ASPECT
EV- STR
EV- VALUATION
MODALITY
PASSIVE
PASSIVE - TYPE
MIDDLE
????
overlap/precede/follow
DISTANCE
neutral/remote/immediate
LONG
+/−
+/−
EXECUTION ITER
HASTY +/−
STATIVE
+/−
INIT
+/−
PROCESS / PROG +/−
+/−
h RESULT
i
ATTITUDE evidential/mirative/certain/????
h
unspec/deontic/epistemic/may/able/desirable(?)/?????
+/−
personal/impersonal/adversative
h
i
unspec/dir-refl/indir-refl/caus-refl/anti-caus
+/−
i
i
ParGram 10: Tense and Aspect
5
9
Appendix B: First Revision
(3)
TAM
VOICE
T- REL
MOOD
ASPECT
#
T- REL - TYPE
overlap/precede/follow/overlap precede (?)
R-S
T- REL - DIST neutral/remote/immediate
"
#
T- REL - TYPE overlap/precede/follow/overlap precede (?)
E-R
T- REL - DIST neutral/remote/immediate
h
i
indicative/subjunctive/conjunctive(?)/imperative/hortative/optative
EV- EXEC
EV- STR
EXTEND
+/−
ITER
+/−
HASTY
+/−
DEIXIS
away/towards
HABITUAL +/−
STATIVE +/−
INIT
+/−
PROCESS +/−
+/−
i
evidential/mirative/certain/quotative/inferential
RESULT
EV- VALUATION
MODALITY
"
PASSIVE
PASSIVE - TYPE
MIDDLE
h
h
unspec/deontic/epistemic/may/able/desirable(?)/?????
+/−
personal/impersonal/adversative
h
i
unspec/dir-refl/indir-refl/caus-refl/anti-caus
i
"New Tense/Aspect features"
TAM: -> << [ ASPECT EV-STR EV-VALUATION MODALITY MOOD2 T-REL ].
ASPECT: -> << [ EV-EXEC, EV-STR ].
EV-EXEC: -> << [ HASTY ITER EXTEND ].
HASTY: -> $ {+ -}.
ITER: -> $ {+ -}.
EXTEND: -> $ {+ -}.
HABITUAL: -> $ {+ -}.
DEIXIS -> $ {away towards}.
EV-STR: -> << [ INIT PROCESS "OR PROG?" RESULT STATIVE ].
INIT: -> $ {+ -}.
PROCESS: -> $ {+ -}.
RESULT: -> $ {+ -}.
STATIVE: -> $ {+ -}.
EV-VALUATION: -> $ {certain evidential mirative quotative inferential}.
MODALITY: -> $ {deontic epistemic unspec may able desirable}.
ParGram 10: Tense and Aspect
10
MOOD2: -> $ {"conjunctive" hortative imperative indicative optative
subjunctive}.
T-REL: -> << [ E-R R-S ].
E-R: -> << [ T-REL-TYPE T-REL-DIST ].
T-REL-TYPE: { -> $ {follow overlap precede}
| -> << [ FOLLOW PRECEDE] }.
FOLLOW: -> $ {+ -}.
PRECEDE: -> $ {+ -}.
T-REL-DIST: -> $ {immediate neutral remote}.
VOICE: -> << [ MIDDLE PASSIVE PASSIVE-TYPE2 ].
MIDDLE: -> $ {anti-caus caus-refl dir-refl indir-refl unspec}.
"PASSIVE as before"
PASSIVE-TYPE2: -> $ {adversative impersonal personal}.
6
Appendix C: Second Revision
The current proposal is shown in (4). The version in terms of XLE’s feature declaration is shown
below that.
ParGram 10: Tense and Aspect
11
(4) Second revision:
TENSE
TAM
VOICE
TENSE - DIST
ASPECT
ASPECT- DIST
VIEWPOINT
MOOD
EV- EXEC
EV- STR
EV- VALUATION
MODALITY
PASSIVE
PASSIVE - TYPE
MIDDLE
h
pres/past/fut/non-past/non-fut
h
neutral/remote/immediate
i
i
h
follow/overlap/precede/non-follow/non-precede
h
i
neutral/remote/immediate
i
h
imperfective/perfective
i
h
indicative/subjunctive/conjunctive(?)/imperative/hortative/optative
EXTEND
h
unspec/deontic/epistemic/potential/desiderative/permissive/...
+/−
ITER - DUR +/−/iter/dur
HASTY
+/−
away/towards
DEIXIS
HABITUAL +/−
STATIVE +/−
INIT
+/−
PROCESS +/−
+/−
h RESULT
i
evidential/mirative/certain/quotative/inferential
h
+/−
i
h
personal/impersonal/adversative
h
+/dir-refl/indir-refl/caus-refl/anti-caus
i
i
Changes vis-à-vis first revision:
– (Re-)replaced T- REL R - S T- REL - TYPE with TENSE;
– replaced values overlap etc. of TENSE with pres etc.;
– replaced T- REL R - S T- REL - DIST with TENSE - DIST;
– replaced T- REL E - R T- REL - TYPE with ASPECT;
– replaced T- REL E - R T- REL - DIST with ASPECT- DIST;
– added VIEWPOINT ;
– deleted (old) ASPECT (aka AKTIONSART) altogether and decreased depth of f-structure;
– changed EV- EXEC ITER to EV- EXEC ITER - DUR, with values +/−/iter/dur to allow for both
underspecification (+ value) and specification (iter, dur);
– replaced MODALITY values able, desirable, may with potential, desiderative, permissive
respectively.
i
i
ParGram 10: Tense and Aspect
6.1
12
TAM Feature Space (2nd revision)
STANDARD TAM FEATURES (1.0)
"New Tense/Aspect/Mood features"
"Common features already existing but having different values"
"have a number 2 attached"
TAM: -> << [ ASPECT ASPECT-DIST EV-EXEC EV-STR EV-VALUATION
MODALITY MOOD2 TENSE2 TENSE-DIST VIEWPOINT ].
"actually better keep ASPECT like this (?)"
ASPECT: -> $ {follow non-follow non-precede overlap precede}.
ASPECT-DIST: -> $ {immediate neutral remote}.
EV-EXEC: -> << [ DEIXIS2 EXTEND HABITUAL HASTY ITER-DUR ].
DEIXIS2: -> $ {away towards}.
EXTEND: -> $ {+ -}.
HABITUAL: -> $ {+ -}.
HASTY: -> $ {+ -}.
ITER-DUR: -> $ {+ - dur iter}.
EV-STR: -> << [ INIT PROCESS RESULT STATIVE ].
INIT: -> $ {+ -}.
PROCESS: -> $ {+ -}.
RESULT: -> $ {+ -}.
STATIVE: -> $ {+ -}.
EV-VALUATION: -> $ {certain evidential mirative quotative inferential}.
MODALITY: -> $ {deontic desiderative epistemic permissive potential unspec}.
MOOD2: -> $ {"conjunctive" hortative imperative indicative optative
subjunctive}.
TENSE2: -> $ {fut non-fut non-past past pres}.
TENSE-DIST: -> $ {immediate neutral remote}.
VIEWPOINT: -> $ {imperfective perfective}.
VOICE: -> << [ MIDDLE PASSIVE PASSIVE-TYPE2 ].
MIDDLE: -> $ {+ anti-caus caus-refl dir-refl indir-refl}.
"PASSIVE as before"
PASSIVE-TYPE2: -> $ {adversative impersonal personal}.
----