Skip to main content Accessibility help

The epistemic import of aspectual constructions: the case of performatives



In this study we chart the aspectual characteristics of performative utterances in a cross-linguistic sample of sixteen languages on the basis of native-speaker elicitations. We conclude that there is not one single aspectual type (e.g., perfectives) that is systematically reserved for performative contexts. Instead, the aspectual form of performative utterances in a given language is epistemically motivated, in the sense that the language will turn to that aspectual construction which it generally selects to refer to situations that are fully and instantly identifiable as an instance of a given situation type at the time of speaking. We use the method of Multidimensional Scaling to demonstrate this: whatever the exact value of a given aspectual marker, if it is used to mark performatives, then it also commonly features in the expression of states and habits, which have the subinterval property (they can be fully verified based on a random segment), demonstrations, and other special contexts featuring more or less predictable and therefore instantly identifiable events. On the other hand, our study shows that performative contexts do not normally feature progressive aspect, which is dedicated to the expression of events that are not fully and instantly identifiable.


Corresponding author


Hide All

We wish to thank three anonymous reviewers for their detailed comments on a previous version of this paper. This work was supported by the National Fund for Scientific Research – FNRS (grant number 1.B099.15F; first author) and the National Fund for Scientific Research – FWO (grant number K8.005.16N; third author). Both institutions are hereby gratefully acknowledged.



Hide All
Anthonissen, L., De Wit, A., & Mortelmans, T. (2016). Aspect meets modality: a semantic analysis of the German am-progressive. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 28(1), 130.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Austin, J. L. (1979). Philosophical papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van der Auwera, J., & Plungian, V. (1998), Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, 2, 79124.
Bach, K. (1975). Performatives are statements too. Philosophical Studies, 28, 229236.
Bach, K., & Harnish, R. M. (1992). How performatives really work: a reply to Searle. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, 93110.
Barentsen, A. A. (1985). ‘Tijd’, ‘aspect’ en de conjunctie poka. Over het gebruik van enkele vormen in het Moderne Russisch. Unpublished Phd thesis, University of Amsterdam.
Brisard, F., & Meeuwis, M. (2009). Present and perfect in Bantu: the case of Lingála. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 30(1), 2143.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chung, S., & Timberlake, A. (1985). Tense, Aspect and Mood. In Shopen, T. (Ed.), Grammatical categories and the lexicon, volume 3: language typology and syntactic description (pp. 202258). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Condoravdi, C., & Lauer, S. (2011). Performative verbs and performative acts. In Reich, I., Horch, E., & Pauly, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung 15 (pp. 149164). Saarbrücken: Universaar—Saarland University Press.
Croft, W. (2012). Verbs: aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W., & Poole, K. (2008). Inferring universals from grammatical variation: multidimensional scaling for typological analysis. Theoretical Linguistics, 34, 137.
Dahl, Ö. (1985). Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dahl, Ö. (2000). The grammar of future time reference in European languages. Dahl, In Ö. (Ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe (pp. 309328). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Davies, M. (2008-). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present. Available online at <>
De Wit, A. (2017), The present perfective paradox across languages (Oxford Studies of Time in Language and Thought). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Wit, A., & Brisard, F. (2014a). A Cognitive Grammar account of the semantics of the English present progressive. Journal of Linguistics, 50(1), 4990.
De Wit, A., & Brisard, F. (2014b). Zero verb marking in Sranan. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 29(1), 148.
De Wit, A., & Michaelis, L. A. (ms.), Progressive performatives in English.
De Wit, A., Patard, A., & Brisard, F. (2013). A contrastive analysis of the present progressive in French and English. Studies in Language, 37(4), 846879.
Dickey, S. M. (2000). Parameters of Slavic aspect: a cognitive approach. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Dickey, S. M. (2015). The aspectual development of performatives in Slavic. Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie, 71(2), 249304.
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Forsyth, J. (1970). A grammar of aspect: usage and meaning in the Russian verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Galton, H. (1976). The main functions of the Slavic verbal aspect. Skopje: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Goldsmith, J., & Woisetschlaeger, E. F. (1982). The logic of the English progressive. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 7989.
Haiman, J. (1980), The iconicity of grammar: isomorphism and motivation. Language, 56, 515540.
Harnish, R. M. (2007). Performative utterances: seven puzzles. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 3, 321.
Haspelmath, M. (1997). Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hewson, J., & Bubenik, V. (1997). Tense and aspect in Indo-European languages: theory, typology, diachrony. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hewson, J. (2012). Tense. In Binnick, R. I. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect (pp. 507535). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Israeli, A. (2001). The choice of aspect in Russian verbs of communication: pragmatic contract. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 9(1), 4998.
Jóhannsdóttir, K. M. (2011). Aspects of the progressive in English and Icelandic. Unpublsihed PhD thesis, University of British Columbia.
Khalil, A., & McCarus, E. (1999). Arabic performative verbs. Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik, 36, 720.
Kochańska, A. (2002). A Cognitive Grammar analysis of Polish nonpast perfectives and imperfectives: how virtual events differ from actual ones. In Brisard, F. (Ed.), Grounding: the epistemic footing of deixis and reference (pp. 349390). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, volume 1: theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2001). The English present tense. English Language and Linguistics, 5, 251273.
Langacker, R. W. (2011). The English present. In Patard, A. & Brisard, F. (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to tense, aspect and epistemic modality (pp. 4586). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Leech, G. (2004). Meaning and the English verb, 3rd ed. Harlow: Pearson.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meeuwis, M. (2013). Lingala. In Michaelis, S. M., Maurer, P., Haspelmath, M., & Huber, M. (Eds.), Contact languages based on languages from Africa, Asia, Australia, and the Americas (pp. 2533). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nurse, D. (2008). Tense and aspect in Bantu. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Petré, P. (2017). The extravagant and the progressive: an experimental corpus study on the grammaticalization history of [BE Ving]. English Language and Linguistics, 21(2), 227250.
Procházka, S., & Bsees, U. (2011). Performatives in Arabic administrative speech. Imperium and Officium Working Papers. Online: <>.
Rosaldo, M. Z. (1982). The things we wo with words: Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy. Language in Society, 11, 203237.
Samie, T. de (2009). Etude linguistique du constituant verbal en kirundi: Suivi de dictionnaire des lexèmes verbo-nominaux. Paris: L’Harmatttan.
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of speech acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 123.
Searle, J. R. (1989). How performatives work. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 535558.
Smith, C. S. (1997). The parameter of aspect, 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Sweetser, E. (2000). Blended spaces and performativity. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 305333.
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vanden Wyngaerd, G. (2005). Simple tense. In Den Dikken, M. & Tortora, C. (Eds.), The function of function words and functional categories (pp. 187215). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Verschueren, J. (1995). The conceptual basis of performativity. In Shibatani, M., & Thompson, S. (Eds.), Essays in semantics and pragmatics: essays in honor of Charles J. Fillmore (pp. 299321). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wälchli, B., & Cysouw, M. (2012). Lexical typology through similarity semantics: towards a semantic map of motion verbs. Linguistics, 50(3), 671710.
Wiemer, B. (2014). Upotreblenie soveršennogo vida v performativnom nastojaščem. In Dmitrenko, S. Ju. & Zaika, N. M. (Eds), Studia octogenario Victori Khrakovskij Samuelis filio dedicata (Acta linguistica Petropolitana 10(3)) (pp. 91113). St Petersburg: Nauka.
Williams, C. (2002). Non-progressive and progressive aspect in English. Fasano: Schena editore.


The epistemic import of aspectual constructions: the case of performatives



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed