Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-pwrkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-22T14:34:17.194Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aspect and Aktionsart: towards a semantic distinction1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Carl Bache
Carl Bache
Affiliation:
University of Odense
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Slavonic notion of ‘vid’ (= ‘aspect’) has recently received much attention from the viewpoint of general linguistics. Not surprisingly, perhaps, some of the major contributions to the study of aspect as a general metalinguistic category are offered by linguists who are anxious to treat aspect in terms so general that the category applies to as many specific problem areas in non-Slavonic languages as possible (such as the opposition between the so-called progressive and non-progressive forms in English and the opposition between the imparfait and the passé simple in literary French). However, in my view, a satisfactory assessment of aspect in non-Slavonic languages can only be arrived at if we obey the following two conditions: (1) the general metalinguistic category of aspect must be defined independently of problem areas in non-Slavonic languages; (2) the relationship between aspect and other categories traditionally associated with the verb (especially tense and Aktionsart) must be specified.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 1982 , pp. 57 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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

REFERENCES

Agrell, S. (1908). Aspektänderung und Aktionsartbildung beim polnischen Zeitwort. Lund.Google Scholar
Brugmann, K. (1904). Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. London, New York & Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. R. (1972). Studies in the logic of verb aspect and time reference in English. (Studies in Linguistics. I.) Department of Linguistics. University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Forsyth, J. (1970). A grammar of aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Friedrich, P. (1974). On aspect theory and Homeric aspect. (Indiana University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics; Memoir 28 of IJAL) Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Galton, H. (1962). Aorist und Aspekt im Slavischen. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Galton, H. (1964). A new theory of the Slavic verbal aspect. ArchL 16. 133–144.Google Scholar
Garey, H. (1957). Verbal aspect in French. Lg 33. 91–110.Google Scholar
Goedsche, R. (1940). Aspect versus Aktionsart. JEGP 39. 189–196.Google Scholar
Hermann, E. (1927). Objektive und subjektive Aktionsart. IF 45. 207–228.Google Scholar
Hermann, E. (1933). Aspekt und Aktionsart. NAWG 10. 470–480.Google Scholar
Holt, J. (1943). Acta Jutlandica Etudes d'aspect. 15. 2.Google Scholar
Jacobsohn, H. (1926). Review of Wackernagel, J.: Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deuisch (Basel, 1920). Gnomon 2. 369–395.Google Scholar
Jacobsohn, H. (1933). Aspektfragen. IF 51. 292–318.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1939). Zur Struktur des Russischen Verbums. In Charisteria G. Mathesio. Prague: Cercle Linguistique de Prague. 74–84.Google Scholar
Koschmieder, E. (1928/1929). Studien zum slavischen Verbalaspekt. KZ 55, 280–304 (Part I) and KZ 56, 78–105 (Part II).Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. London, New York & Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Macaulay, R. K. S. (1978). On Comrie (1976) and Friedrich (1974). Lg 54. 416–420.Google Scholar
Miller, J. E. (1970) Stative verbs in Russian. FL 6. 488–504.Google Scholar
Murphy, A. B. (1965). Aspectival usage in Russian. Oxford, London, etc.: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, T. F. (1960). A Middle English syntax. Helsinki.Google Scholar
Porzig, W. (1927). Zur Aktionsart indogermanischer Präsensbildungen. IF 45. 152–167.Google Scholar
Poutsma, H. (1921). The characters of the English verb and the expanded form. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Rundgren, F. (1959). Intensiv und Aspektkorrelation. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 1959: 5. Uppsala and Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Rundgren, F. (1961). Das althebräische Verbum: Abriss der Aspektlehre. Stockholm.Google Scholar
Sørensen, H. M. (1943). Om definitionerne af verbets aspekter. In Im memoriam Kr. Sandfeld. Copenhagen. 221–233.Google Scholar
Zandvoort, R. W. (1962). Is ‘Aspect’ an English Verbal Category?. In Contributions to English syntax and philology (Frank, Behre ed.). Gothenburg Studies in English 14. 1–20.Google Scholar