Perfective-Imperfective

[Larry Trask]

On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, Patrick C. Ryan wrote:

> I wonder what proof we really have --- aside from the Larry's bare
> assertion --- that the definition of 'perfective' used in Larry's
> dictionary is "now most widely used". It is certainly true that a
> number of writers on the subject of aspect have, apparently,
> followed Comrie.

Well, read the literature on aspect.

[on Dixon on Biblical Hebrew]

> Dixon is a current, well-known linguist who, I suppose on the basis
> of what he has written, cited above, does not subscribe to the
> Comrie definitions of imperfective/perfective.

Sorry; doesn't follow.  Dixon is talking about a language with its own
aspectual contrasts and its own established terminology.  Hebrew is no
more a basis for a universal definition than Russian is.

> I think it would be advisable for Larry to realize that when he
> purports to write a dictionary, he should be describing and
> acknowledging real current professional usage *not* writing a
> catechism of definitions he and Comrie would desire to see adopted.
> We are long past 1984, and, however much some might want it, 'war'
> is not 'peace'.

I have already made it clear that I *am* describing "real current
professional usage", while you are clinging to an outdated view.

[on my rejection of Pei and of general dictionaries of English as
reliable sources for linguistic terminology]

> What Larry obviously is unwilling to acknowledge is that these
> dictionaries, if they are doing *their* jobs properly (does he
> dispute it?), are recording *USAGE* no matter whatever Larry thinks
> might be the *proper* definition. I sincerely hope that he does not
> succeed in imposing his and Comrie's definition on the non-linguist
> and linguist readership of these dictionaries as he threatens.
> Frankly, I believe his demonstrated attitude makes him unqualified
> to be an adviser on usage in dictionaries like the OED.

Dear, dear.  I'm afraid it's up to you, Pat, to compile the Ryan English
Dictionary.  The editors of the OED seem pretty pleased with my work so
far, and they are showing no inclination to sack me, I'm afraid.
No doubt we can look forward to a ceremonial burning of the third
edition of the OED in Arkansas. ;-)

[on my rejection of the etymological fallacy]

> In its most extreme interpretation, there is some truth in this,
> provided one emends the statement to 'perfective' rather than
> 'perfect', which we have not been discussing. However, to neglect
> the etymological meaning of a word while making a *new* assignment
> of meaning, which is what Comrie did,

No, he didn't.

> or to adopt it as Larry did, is irresponsible and totally
> unjustified.

Nonsense.  Balderdash.  I am reporting on contemporary use, and
etymology is neither here nor there.

> Let us provisionally assume that Comrie's definition of 'perfective'
> ("denotes a situation viewed in its entirety, without regard to
> internal temporal constituency") actually means something in English
> (what in God's name would an 'internal temporal constituent' be???).

Not `constituent', but `constituency'.  It means `structure'.

> If it were true that verbal notions could be "superordinate"ly
> divided into those for which this definition had some meaning, and
> those for which it did not, it would still be highly inappropriate
> to adopt the term "perfective" for it when "perfective" had and has
> an established older and current (dictionaries and Dixon) meaning
> established through usage which corresponds to what Trask would like
> to call, *unnecessarily* introducing a new term, 'completive'
> (which, of course, he did not bother to include in his dictionary).

I didn't introduce `completive'.  And it's absent from my dictionary
because I was forced to deliver a book within a specified length.
Not my preference.

> Why not call it - if it exists at all - 'integral' (cf. Binnick) or
> something else which, at least, bears a *passing*, a nodding
> resemblance in meaning to its purported idea?

Hmmm.  Having complained bitterly that I am (allegedly) ignoring
established terminology in favor of my own coinages, you are now
advising us to coin a new term for a concept which already has an
established name.  Uh-huh.

> Having asked the question, I will attempt to answer it. Bernard
> Comrie has done much valuable work over the years with which I am
> personally familiar. However, in the case of his book _Aspect_, I
> sincerely and honestly believe he is idiosyncratically deviant from
> start to finish.

"Idiosyncratically deviant from start to finish", eh?  So: one of the
most erudite and respected linguists on the planet doesn't know what
he's talking about, while you do?  Really?

> His prestige, based on his previous work, has created a Pied Piper
> effect; and those eager to acknowledge his past contributions have
> adopted his views without sufficient critical appraisal.

Nonsense.  Read the reviews of Comrie's book.  Or read the later work
which cites it, such as Binnick's book.

You seem to be saying that Comrie's work is great when it matches your
ideas, but trash when you don't agree with it.

> I could give many examples from his book that make assertions
> contrary to what specialists in the various fields assert (for
> example, "the Arabic Perfective, which is a perfective relative
> past"; the idea that kataba/yaktubu represents a past/present
> division is an idea held by *no* AAist of which I am aware; what
> entitles Comrie to contradict all previous Arabists? And how likely
> is it that he understands Arabic better than they do?).

I would be *veeeery* careful about challenging Comrie's knowledge of any
language he writes about.  There exist few linguists with greater
knowledge of more languages than Comrie has.

> I will offer only an opinion on a subject upon which I believe I am
> entitled to render a completely informed judgment as
> Muttersprachler. Comrie informs us on p. 28 regarding English 'used
> to + V', that "it is often claimed that a further element of the
> meaning of these forms is that the situation described no longer
> holds", which he *denies*.

Of course he does.  And he's right.

> I have lived in the East, West, Central and South of the United
> States, and listened to video and film mass media regularly, and I
> am one of those who would "often" claim that "I used to come at 7
> PM" implies absolutely that "I no longer come at 7 PM though I did
> in he past".

But you are overlooking something crucial: the first-person subject.
That makes a *big* difference, as it does in a wide variety of cases:

	`Mike thinks that Susie is younger than she is.'
	##`I think that Susie is younger than she is.'

	`Schubert died before he finished his last symphony.'
	##`I died before I finished my last symphony.'

	`Mike will wash the dishes.
	`I'll wash the dishes.' (different interpretation)

First-person effects are pervasive in English, and must be factored out
of our analyses.

> If it does not imply that to Comrie, I can only suggest that he may
> be a non-native speaker of English who has never mastered its
> nuances; and, as such, is unqualified to lecture those who are on
> the interpretation of phrases such as "NP used to V". This is what
> anyone who was reasonable might have suspected from the "it is often
> claimed ...". Why is it so "often" claimed if many do not understand
> it as I do? And what entitles Comrie to "correct" our native
> interpretations? His professorial authority?

Well.  Let me defend my old friend Bernard against these disgraceful
slurs.

I've known Bernard for twenty years, and I can assure you all that he is
indeed a native speaker of English, born and raised in England.

But the much bigger slur is that Comrie is the sort of linguist who
merely reports his own intuitions, without looking at the data.
Bernard is an enormously knowledgeable linguist.  He speaks Russian
almost like a native, and he is fluent in a number of other languages.
He has made serious studies of a large number of languages, and he's
done fieldwork in places ranging from Siberia to New Guinea.  And he
*never* makes a statement he can't back up with plenty of hard data.

Anyway, it is trivial to demonstrate that Comrie is right: English `used
to' does *not* entail `no longer'.  An example.

Several years ago I was teaching bridge to some of my friends here in
Brighton.  One was Ian, and Ian had unusual trouble in mastering the
bidding system, especially the no-trump bids.  More than a year ago, he
left Brighton, and I haven't played bridge with him, or even seen him,
since then.  Got it?

Now, it is perfectly normal for me to say, when discussing the past,
`Ian used to have trouble with no-trump bids'.  This emphatically does
*not* imply `...but he doesn't now.'  Now does it?  For all I know, Ian
is still struggling with no-trump bids, but I just don't have any
information.

This single example, I submit, is enough to prove that Comrie is right
and that Ryan is wrong.  Nothing surprising here: we linguists learned
years ago that naive native-speaker intuitions are untrustworthy, and
that the facts can be determined only by careful examination of real
usage.  And Comrie has carried out just such an examination of the `used
to' construction.  End of story.

That's enough of this for now.

Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK

larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk