Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T09:41:14.855Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Theory of Aspectual Choice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Carlota S. Smith
Carlota S. Smith*
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sentential aspect presents a situation (event, state etc.) from a particular point of view: it represents the speaker's choice of perspective on the situation. In this article, a speaker-based approach to aspect is proposed which crucially invokes abstraction, namely the idealization of different types of situations. A speaker relates an actual situation to an idealized type by using the linguistic forms associated with that type.

Speakers may choose an unusual way of presenting a situation, as with a progressive stative such as I'm really loving this walk. Here a state is presented as an event. Analysis of stative sentences in English shows that they have a unique aspectual interpretation, and allows for the interpretation of progressive statives.

Two components of sentential aspect are recognized. SITUATION ASPECT involves type of situation, e.g. event or state; VIEWPOINT ASPECT involves type of perspective, e.g. simple or progressive. Separating these two components leads to a unified account of simple aspect in English.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , September 1983 , pp. 479 - 501
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, Robert L. 1966. The verb system of present-day American English. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Anscombe, Elizabeth. 1964. Before and after. Philosophical Review 73.3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1980. Tenses and aspects as functions on verb phrases. Time, tense and quantifiers, ed. by Rohrer, Christian, 19–38. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Michael, and Partee, Barbara. 1972. Toward the logic of tense and aspect in English. Santa Monica: Systems Development Corporation.Google Scholar
Boertien, Harmon. 1979. Toward a unified semantics of aspectual verbs with to and ing. CLS 15.42–52.Google Scholar
Bull, William. 1960. Time, tense and the verb. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Curme, George. 1935. A grammar of the English language, II. Boston: Heath.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1977. Towards a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English imperfective progressive. Language and Philosophy 1.45–77.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsyth, James. 1970. A grammar of aspect: Usage and meaning in the Russian verb. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
a. The leaders are colluding.Google Scholar
The leaders are in collusion.Google Scholar
b. The group is dissolving.Google Scholar
The group is in dissolution.Google Scholar
c. The members are associating.Google Scholar
The members are in association.Google Scholar
Freed, Alice. 1979. The semantics of English aspectual complementation. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedrich, Paul. 1974. On aspect theory and Homeric aspect. (IJAL memoir 28.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Garey, Howard B. 1957. Verbal aspect in French. Lg. 33.91–110.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. Speech acts, ed. by Cole, Peter & Morgan, Jerry, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, Maurice. 1969. Grammaire transformationelle du français. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary. 1941. Tunica. New York: Augustin.Google Scholar
Heinämäki, Orvokki. 1974. The semantics of English temporal connectives. Austin: University of Texas dissertation.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamp, Hans. 1979. Events, instants and reference. Semantics from different points of view, ed. by Bäuerle, Rainer et al., 376–418. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, Anthony. 1963. Action, emotion and will. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc. 1979. The aspectual system of Hungarian, MS.Google Scholar
Kruisinga, E. 1911. A handbook of present-day English, II. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1966. Stative verbs and adjectives in English. (Harvard Computation Laboratory, Report NSF-17.) Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Lee, Gregory. 1971. Subjects and agents II. Working Papers in Linguistics, Ohio State University, 7.L1–L118.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1970. Towards a semantic description of English. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1955. On a question of aspect. Studia Linguistica 9.45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merlan, Francesca. 1980. Split-intransitivity: Functional oppositions in intransitive inflection. University of California, Berkeley, MS.Google Scholar
Mourelatos, Alex. 1978. Events, processes and states. Language and Philosophy 2.415–34.Google Scholar
O'Leary, Delacey. 1923. Comparative grammar of the Semitic languages. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
Osherson, Daniel, and Smith, Edward. 1981. On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition 9.35–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poutsma, M. 1926. A grammar of Late Modern English, II. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Rohrer, Christian. 1978 (ed.) On the logical analysis of tense and aspect. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. Cognitive development and the acquisition of language, ed. by Moore, Timothy, 111–144. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor, and Mervis, Carolyn. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7.573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryle, Gilbert. 1949. The concept of mind. London: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan. 1973. On the state of progress on progressives and statives. New ways of analyzing variation in English, ed. by Bailey, C.-J. N. & Shuy, Roger, 83–95. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota. 1975. The analysis of tense in English. Texas Linguistic Forum 1.71– 90.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota. 1978. The syntax and interpretation of temporal expressions in English. Linguistics and Philosophy 2.43–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Carlota. MS. The temporal reference of the English futurate. To appear in Communication & Cognition.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 1981. The nature of temporal reference explains the varieties of tenses, aspects and time adverbials. Paper presented at Sloan Workshop, Ohio State University, May.Google Scholar
Taylor, Barry. 1977. Tense and continuity. Linguistics and Philosophy 1.199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics and philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk. 1972. On the compositional nature of the aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, Frederick. 1973. An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Vlach, Frank. 1981. The semantics of the progressive. Tense and aspect, ed. by Tedeschi, Philip & Zaenen, Annie, 271–92. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Whitaker, Jeanne, and Smith, Carlota, MS. Some significant omissions: Ellipsis in Flaubert's Un coeur simple. To appear in Language and Style.Google Scholar
Woisetschlager, Eric. 1978. The logic of the progressive. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar