Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 111–134 | Cite as

Variety in Ancient Greek aspect interpretation

  • Corien Bary
  • Markus EggEmail author
Open Access
Research Article


The wide range of interpretations of aoristic and imperfective aspect in Ancient Greek cannot be attributed to unambiguous aspectual operators but suggest an analysis in terms of coercion in the spirit of de Swart (Nat Lang Linguist Theory 16:347–385, 1998). But since such an analysis cannot explain the Ancient Greek data, we combine Klein’s (Time in language, 1994) theory of tense and aspect with Egg’s (Flexible semantics for reinterpretation phenomena, 2005) aspectual coercion approach. Following Klein. (grammatical) aspect relates the runtime of an eventuality and the current time of reference (topic time). We claim that these relations can trigger aspectual selection restrictions (and subsequent aspectual coercions) just like e.g. aspectually relevant temporal adverbials, and are furthermore susceptible to the Duration Principle of Egg (Flexible semantics for reinterpretation phenomena, 2005): Properties of eventualities must be compatible with respect to the duration they specify for an eventuality. The Duration Principle guides the selection between different feasible coercion operators in cases of aspectual coercion but can also trigger coercions of its own. We analyse the interpretations of aorist and imperfective as cases of coercion that avoid impending violations of aspectual selection restrictions or of the Duration Principle, which covers cases that are problematic for de Swart’s (Nat Lang Linguist Theory 16:347–385, 1998) analysis.


Semantics Aspect Ancient Greek Aspectual coercion 



We thank Emar Maier, Henriëtte de Swart, Peter de Swart, and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.


  1. Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bary, C. (2009a). Aspect in Ancient Greek: A semantic analysis of the aorist and imperfective. Ph.D. thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  3. Bary, C. (2009b). The perfective/imperfective distinction: coercion or aspectual operators? In L. Hogeweg, H. de Hoop, & A. Malchukov (Eds.), Cross-linguistic semantics of Tense, Aspect and Modality (pp. 33–53). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  4. Bary, C. (to appear). The Ancient Greek tragic aorist revisited. Glotta.Google Scholar
  5. Bary, C., & Haug, D. (2011). Temporal anaphora across and inside sentences: The function of participles. Semantics and Pragmatics, 4, 1–56.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, M., & Partee, B. (1978). Toward the logic of tense and aspect in English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  7. Carlson, G. (1977). A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics & Philosophy, 1, 413–457.Google Scholar
  8. de Swart, H. (1998). Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 347–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Egg, M. (2005). Flexible semantics for reinterpretation phenomena. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Gerö, E.-C., & Stechow, A. v. (2003). Tense in time: The Greek perfect. In R. Eckardt, K. v. Heusinger, & C. Schwarze (Eds.), Words in time: Diachronic semantics from different points of view (pp. 251–294). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  12. Gricean, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Klein, W. (1994). Time in language. London: Routlege.Google Scholar
  14. Krifka, M. (1989). Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. München: Fink.Google Scholar
  15. Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic roles as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In I. Sag & A. Sabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical matters (pp. 29–53). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  16. Krifka, M., Pelletier, F., Carlson, G., ter Meulen, A., Chierchia, G., & Link, G. (1995). Genericity: an introduction. In G. Carlson & F. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (pp. 1–124). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Landman, F. (1992). The progressive. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Landman, F. (2008). 1066. On the differences between the tense-perspective-aspect systems of English and Dutch. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Theoretical and Cross-linguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect (pp. 107–166). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  19. Löbner, S. (1989). German schon - erst - noch: An integrated analysis. Linguistics & Philosophy, 12, 167–212.Google Scholar
  20. Moens, M., & Steedman, M. (1986). Temporal information and natural language processing. Technical Report Research Paper RP-2, CCS, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  21. Moens, M., & Steedman, M. (1988). Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics, 14, 15–28.Google Scholar
  22. Rimell, L. (2004). Habitual sentences and generic quantification. In G. Garding & M. Tsujimura (Eds.), WCCFL 23 Proceedings. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
  23. Smyth, H. (1920). A Greek grammar for colleges. New York: American Book Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of PhilosophyRadboud Universiteit NijmegenNijmegen The Netherlands
  2. 2.Institute for English and American StudiesHumboldt-Universitätzu BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations