Variety in Ancient Greek aspect interpretation

Abstract

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.

References

  1. Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  2. Bary, C. (2009a). Aspect in Ancient Greek: A semantic analysis of the aorist and imperfective. Ph.D. thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.

  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.

  4. Bary, C. (to appear). The Ancient Greek tragic aorist revisited. Glotta.

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google 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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  17. Landman, F. (1992). The progressive. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 1–32.

    Article  Google 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.

  19. Löbner, S. (1989). German schon - erst - noch: An integrated analysis. Linguistics & Philosophy, 12, 167–212.

  20. Moens, M., & Steedman, M. (1986). Temporal information and natural language processing. Technical Report Research Paper RP-2, CCS, University of Edinburgh.

  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.

  23. Smyth, H. (1920). A Greek grammar for colleges. New York: American Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markus Egg.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bary, C., Egg, M. Variety in Ancient Greek aspect interpretation. Linguist and Philos 35, 111–134 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-012-9113-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Semantics
  • Aspect
  • Ancient Greek
  • Aspectual coercion