Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T10:05:03.732Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 25 - Tense and Aspect in Germanic Languages

from Part IV - Semantics and Pragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

By
Kristin Melum Eide
Edited by
Michael T. Putnam  and
B. Richard Page
Michael T. Putnam
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
B. Richard Page
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

Many natural languages signal via designated grammatical markers the time when a predicated event takes or took place; in the past, the present, or the future. Such designated markers are for instance particular inflections (affixes), particles, or auxiliaries, usually elements with an affinity to the verbal domain. Exponents serving to locate a situation in time, especially relative to the moment of utterance or the speech event, are described as tense markers. Likewise, languages often encode the internal constituency of events and states, distinguishing a dynamic action from a stative one; denoting whether or not an action is bounded or unbounded, completed, or if it repeats itself. These features of an event are usually described as their aspect. Tense and aspect interact in intricate ways cross-linguistically and have been subjected to scrutiny by several generations of grammarians. This chapter examines some seminal assumptions and descriptions of these notions with a particular view to Germanic languages.

Keywords

deixistense affixestense particlesstateseventssimple and complex tensesfinite and nonfinite tensesperiphrastic tensesabsolute and relative tense
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 591 - 614
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

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.)

References

Bach, E. 1981. “On time, tense, and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics.” In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press: 63–81.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. and Perry, J. 1983. Situations and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, M. and Partee, B. 1978. Toward the Logic of Tense and Aspect in English. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. 1999. “How to acquire language without positive evidence: What acquisitionists can learn from creoles.” In DeGraff, M. (ed.), Language Creation and Language Change – Creolization, Diachrony and Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brodahl Nilsen, M. 2012. Sterke verb og semantiske fellestrekk. Om semantisk motivasjon for bøyingsklassetilhørighet ved norske verb. [Strong verbs and common semantic features. On the semantic motivation for conjugational classes of Norwegian verbs.] M.A. thesis, Dept. of Linguistic and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar – Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect – An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1985a. Tense. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. 1985b. “Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology.” In Shopen, T (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 3. Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press: 309–348.Google Scholar
Costa, J. 1998. Word Order Variation. A Constraint-Based Approach. Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University. Distributed by: Holland Academic Graphics (HIL), The Hague.Google Scholar
Demirdache, H. and Uribe-Extebarria, M. 2000. “The primitives of temporal relations.” In Martin, R., Michael, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 157–186.Google Scholar
Demirdache, H. and Uribe-Etxebarria, M. 2004. “The syntax of time adverbs.” In Guéron, J. and Lecarme, J. (eds.), The Syntax of Time: Current Studies in Linguistics 37. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 143–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vooys, C. G. N. [1957]. 1967. Nederlandse spraakkunst, 7th edn., rev. by M. Schönfeld. Groningen: Wolters.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyvik, H. 1999. “The universality of f-stucture: discovery or stipulation? The case of modals.” Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference, CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Eide, K. M. 2005. Norwegian Modals. Studies in Generative Grammar 74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eide, K. M. 2009a. “Tense, finiteness and the survive principle: Temporal chains in a crash-proof grammar.” In Putnam, M. (ed.), Towards a Derivational Syntax: Survive-Minimalism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 91–132.Google Scholar
Eide, K. M. 2009b. “Finiteness: The haves and the have-nots.” In Alexiadou, A., Hankamer, J. T., McFadden, J., Nuger, J., and Schäfer, F. (eds.), Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 357–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eide, K. M. 2016. “Finiteness, inflection, and the syntax your morphology can afford.” In Eide, K. M. (ed.), Finiteness Matters: On Finiteness-Related Phenomena in Natural Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 121–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enç, M. 1986. “Towards a referential analysis of tense expressions,” Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 405–426.Google Scholar
Faarlund, J. T., Lie, S., and Vannebo, K. I. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Fintel, K. von 2006. “Modality and Language.” In D. M. Borchert (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edn. http://mit.edu/fintel/www/modality.pdf.Google Scholar
Gelderen, E. van 2004. Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Giorgi, A. and Pianesi, F. 1997. Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guéron, J. and Hoekstra, T. 1995. “The temporal interpretation of predication.” In Cardinaletti, A. and Guasti, M. T. (eds.), Small Clauses: Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 28. New York: Academic Press: 77–107.Google Scholar
Harbert, W. 2006. The Germanic Languages. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herweg, M. 1991a. “A critical account of two classical approaches to aspect,” Journal of Semantics 8: 362–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herweg, M. 1991b. “Perfective and imperfective aspect and the theory of events and states,” Linguistics 29: 969–1010.Google Scholar
Hofmann, T. R. 1976. “Past tense replacement and the modal system.” In McCawley, J. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 7. New York: Academic Press: 86–100.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. 1990. As Time Goes By: Tense and Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, N. G. 2005. Yiddish: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Janssen, T. A. J. M. 1988. “Tense and temporal composition in Dutch: Reichenbach’s ‘point of reference’ reconsidered.” In Ehrich, V. and Vater, H. (eds.), Temporalsemantik. Beiträge zür Linguistik der Zeitreferenz. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 96–128.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1931. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Book IV. Syntax. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Julien, M. 2000. Syntactic Heads and Word Formation – A Study of Verbal Inflection. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tromsø. Published as Julien 2002 by Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Julien, M. 2001. “The syntax of complex tenses,” The Linguistic Review 18:125–167.Google Scholar
Keller, R. E. 1961. German Dialects: Phonology and Morphology. Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1998. “Partitive case and aspect.” In Geuder, W. and Butt, M. (eds.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors. Stanford, CA: CSLI: 265–307.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol.1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2. Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Klein, W. 1992. “The Present Perfect puzzle.” Language 68: 525–552.Google Scholar
Klein, W. 1994. Time in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Klein, W. 1995. “A time-relational analysis of Russian Aspect,” Language 71: 669–695.Google Scholar
Klein, W. 1998. “Assertion and Finiteness.” In Dittmar, N. and Penner, Z. (eds.), Issues in the Theory of Language Acquisition: Essays in Honor of Jürgen Weissenborn. Bern: Peter Lang Verlag: 225–245.Google Scholar
Klein, W. 2006. “On finiteness.” In van Geenhoven, V. (ed), Semantics in Acquisition. Heidelberg: Springer: 245–272.Google Scholar
König, E. and van der Auwera, J. 1994. The Germanic Languages. London:Routledge.Google Scholar
Kreidler, C. W. 1998. Introducing English Semantics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lockwood, W. 1968. Historical German Syntax. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maylor, B. R. 2002. Lexical Template Morphology: Change of State and the Verbal Prefixes in German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Meulen, A. G. B. ter 1995. Representing Time in Natural Language: The Dynamic Interpretation of Tense and Aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. 1998. Aspectual Grammar and Past-Time Reference. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Montague, R. 1974. Formal Philosophy. New York: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, T. 1960. A Middle English Syntax. Helsinki: Societe Neophilogique.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. and Law, P. 2001. “Creole Studies: A theoretical linguist’s field guide,” GLOT International 5.2: 47–57.Google Scholar
Partee, B. 1973. “Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English,” The Journal of Philosophy 70: 601–609.Google Scholar
Ponelis, F. A. 1992. The Development of Afrikaans. Bern: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar
Prior, A. 1967. Past, Present and Future. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. 1993. “The transformation of Hawaiian plantation pidgin and the emergence of Hawaii Creole English.” Paper presented at the conference of Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics, Amsterdam, June 10–12.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. 1993. Pidgin and Creole Languages. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Salmons, J. 2012. A History of German: What the Past Reveals about Today’s Language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, C. S. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. 1995. “What is the meaning of the present and past tenses?” In Bertinetto, P. M., Bianchi, V., Higginbotham, J., and Squartini, M. (eds.), Temporal Reference, Aspect and Actionality, Vol. 1. Semantic and Syntactic Perspectives. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier: 381–396.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. 1996. “The phrase structure of tense.” In Rooryck, J. and Zaring, L. (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Studies in Natural language & Linguistic Theory, Vol. 33. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 277–291.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z.1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1985. “Reichenbach revisited: One, two or three temporal relations,” Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 19: 81–98.Google Scholar
Zagona, K. 1995. “Temporal argument structure: Nonfigurational elements of construal.” In Bertinetto, P. M., Bianchi, V., Higginbotham, J., and Squartini, M. (eds.), Temporal Reference, Aspect and Actionality. Vol. 1. Semantic and Syntactic Perspectives. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier, 397–410.Google Scholar
Zwarts, J. 2006. “Case Marking Direction: The Accusative in German PPs,” Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 42.2: 93–107.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×