33.3590, Review: Semantics, Syntax: Verkuyl (2021)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-33-3590. Wed Nov 16 2022. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 33.3590, Review: Semantics, Syntax: Verkuyl (2021)

Moderators:

Editor for this issue: Maria Lucero Guillen Puon <luceroguillen at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 17:53:10
From: Hassan Makhad [hmakhad at hotmail.com]
Subject: The Compositional Nature of Tense, Mood and Aspect: Volume 167

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36831457


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/32/32-3232.html

AUTHOR: Henk J.  Verkuyl
TITLE: The Compositional Nature of Tense, Mood and Aspect: Volume 167
SERIES TITLE: Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 167
PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press
YEAR: 2021

REVIEWER: Hassan Makhad, Cadi Ayyad University

SUMMARY

Henk Verkuyl’s “The Compositional Nature of Tense, Mood and Aspect” is an
innovative and critical exploration of the intersections of tense, mood, and
aspect (TMA) in natural languages. It consists of a table of contents, a list
of figures and tables, a preface, eight chapters, an appendix, a bibliography,
and indices for authors and subjects. It is intended for specialists and
advanced researchers in the field of TMA studies. It proposes a new approach
toward modeling linguistic research on temporality. The work assumes that
tense is binary rather than ternary. It additionally suggests that aspect is
better understood from a compositional perspective. Moreover, it rejects the
event semantics approach in favor of an abstract event input with a “complex
temporal meaning”. The main objective is to unify these micro-level
postulations into a compositional approach. For that reason, the eight
chapters provide a remarkable explanation of TMA interactions in natural
languages. 

The book begins with an introductory chapter which frames the overall
perspectives of the project. It sets out by giving good reasons for the binary
approach as exemplified by the tense system in Dutch. The classification
proves the superfluity of the reference point ‘R’ in temporal analysis. The
chapter also addresses the inadequacies of aspectual classes as they
complicate the understanding of tense and aspect. Likewise, the chapter brings
to focus the terminological confusion in the literature. This concerns the
ambiguity between the temporal and modal uses of auxiliaries. It shows that
the periphrastic reading of “will” is especially confusing. It points out the
opposition between perfectum and imperfectum and the matter of matching the
English simple past and the French passé simple. In a parallel fashion, it
undertakes the concern of viewing the past perfect as a past in the past which
is anchored in the concept of anteriority.   

Chapter Two addresses the issue of the ternary analysis of tense. This
approach stems from Latin practice of characterizing verb forms / tenses on
the basis of distinct morphological tense suffixes. It sets out to provide an
overview of Reichenbach (1947). The proposal specifies that tense is based on
the anteriority, simultaneity, or posteriority of matrix points: E, R, and S.
It compares this scheme with earlier systems, namely those of Jesperson (1924)
and Madvig (1871). According to his judgment, tense perception is understood
on the basis of the Latin system being imposed on other languages. The author
shows that classical grammars have provided insights into temporal systems,
yet confuse the theory of tense and aspect as a consequence of adopting a
ternary approach. Verkuyl therefore proposes a binary model of tense
oppositions to account for the challenges caused by the classical ternary
system.  

Chapter Three seeks to demonstrate that the binary approach to tense is
superior to the ternary one. It starts by overviewing the binary system as
initially proposed in Te Winkel (1866). It consists of three major
oppositions: Present-Past, Synchronous-Posterior, and Action in
Progress-Completed Action. Syntactically, these binary operators are
positioned higher above the tenseless predication in phrase structures. In
doing so, the chapter formalizes the binary approach which proves suitable for
accounting for the parallelism between present and past tense. The latter
stresses the interaction of TMA. This particularly holds as Present-Past
represents tense oppositions, Synchronous-Posterior corresponds to mood
divergences, and Action in Progress-Completed Action denotes aspectual
differences. Verkuyl also illustrates that the tense domain is flexible as it
may extend into longer periods. This is so because events may precede or
follow fleeting points. Similarly, languages show interactions between tense
operators to display larger intervals of time. The issues of aspectual
resultatives, experiential predicates, and the interpretation of present
perfect are examined in terms of actualized and unactualized event
realizations. The author has thus presented the binary tense system and how it
works well at the top of predicates.

Chapter Four proposes a clarification of the confusion of themes in the theory
of tense and aspect. It introduces features to account for aspectual
composition. It elaborates on the grammatical construction of VPs with their
arguments, which previous studies (Vendler, Kenny) failed to compute. It
argues for the removal of the traditional classification of aspectual classes
and aspectual idiosyncrasies by reason of translation errors and
misinterpretations. Similarly, while it obstructs compositionality, the
traditional aspectual classification neither explains the behavior of the
existing diverse verbal forms nor does it clarify the progressive construction
of accomplishments. In the same way, it addresses the prickly topic of energy
and kinesis in aspectual diversity. The former is complete and extends over
time, whereas the latter is inherently incomplete leading to a termination
point. The peculiarities prove to be entirely ontological rather than
linguistic. The long-established approach is thus proven inaccurate,
especially in that the author provides evidence that the exchangeability of
present and present perfect is actually not restrained by the distinction
between energeia and kinesis. The author also shows the inadequacies of the
tripartition criterion. The latter faces unresolvable empirical complexities.
The author proposes to overcome such difficulties by attributing dynamic verbs
either with a goal or a completion attribute. 

Chapter Five is an extension of Chapter Four. It presents principles of
compositionality and replaces features by semantic values. It begins by
shedding some light on verbs and the contribution of arguments at the S0
predication. It demonstrates that continuity in verbal variation operates in
terms of actual realization with subintervals of unboundedness. Actualization
is consequently a mapping procedure from R+ to N. The properties of
transitivity and aspectuality are rationalized by terms of a mathematical
function. Presence of the particle PRTD ensures that a verb is transitive. Its
absence prevents the same verb to occur with an object. Likewise, the external
argument is formally mapped to VPs through a multiplication relation, as given
in (31) on page 155. Moreover, aspectual composition is explained by means of
formal facts provided through lexical predication. The latter is thus an input
to the higher levels of tensed sentences managed on the basis of tense
operators. The same formal machinery is used to account for unaccusatives and
unergatives, while pertinent details are spelled out at various stages of
phrase structure derivations. 

Chapter Six examines the role of modifiers in the advanced semantic analysis.
On the basis of compositionality the author provides a formal account of
temporal adverbial modifications. He distinguishes two types of adverbs:
deictic and non-deictic. Essential in his analysis is the predominance of
tense over adverbials. Although the latter function at various stages, they
cannot be inserted above the PRES-PAST node. Moreover, adverbial modification
is shown to function either above or below S0, which indicates that temporal
adverbials interact with phrase structure building. Compliant with
compositionality constraints, non-deictic adverbs operate below S0.
Conversely, deictic adverbs get valued when PRES-PAST derivation applies.
Furthermore, the aspectual composition analysis solves the present perfect
puzzle by disallowing anteriority within two temporal units in a tense
structure involving deictic adverbials. By doing so, the chapter provides a
proper account for temporal adverbial modifications and the variability
involved in their semantic interpretation. 

Chapter Seven deals with three primary issues. The first topic concerns the
progressive form. It is demonstrated to be doubtfully associated with
imperfectivity. The PROG operator is, in terms of a binary approach, broken
down into two components: BE and ING-affix. Both the operator BE and the
following verb are characterized as having their own eventuality indexes. The
ING form thus acquires its distinct semantic meaning. The second theme
concerns a comparison between Slavic and non-Slavic aspects in terms of
compositionality. The provided binary account unifies the two formalizations
through special reference to the features [±T], [±SEQ], and [±TOTAL]. In
addition, the analysis highlights the distinction between aspect and
aktionsart. Using data from different languages, the author thus formalizes a
semantic approach which justifies his aspectual theory. The third subject
under discussion is the aorist. The author sheds light on the role of the
aorist and how it is differentiated from tense. On the basis of previous work
and different languages, the aorist is demonstrated to be external to the
binary oppositions of tense. The issue of the anteriority present in the
aorist is accounted for through considering PERF as a dual element
amalgamating aorist interpretations with deictic understandings. Thus the
peripheral and marginal position of the aorist may be understood as a binary
reorganization of tense systems. 

Chapter Eight strives to concretize the way TMA reciprocally interact in
clause structure. In the sense of rendering the binary system universal, the
base clause is shown to be dominated by aspect (IMP/PERF). The latter is
dominated by mood (SYN/POST), while tense (PRES/PAST) is the top node. The
chapter begins by discussing the nature of negation in combination with
quantifiers. It considers posteriority to be a modal. The chapter discusses
modals and their use in different domains. The binary opposition between
SYN/POST is viewed as a reflection of realis and irrealis mood. The formal
procedure demonstrates that TMA information is organized according to a joint
scope hierarchy expressing tense, mood, and aspect. These functional
categories are thus accounted for in an organized compositional approach. The
proposal is adequate and impressive in its modeling of the computational
complexity of logico-semantic analysis of TMA

EVALUATION

The book is an outstanding piece of research that offers an invitation to
specialized readership to reconsider the opacity that underpins the nature of
temporality in natural languages. Its central theme is the reciprocal
interplay of TMA. Exploring this domain is a scientifically challenging task.
The main reason is that this area of inquiry involves intersections between
syntax, morphology, and semantics as well as pragmatics. The interrelatedness
of these fields makes investigation very complex. However, the author has
managed to present the discussed phenomenon from a distinct pattern of
analysis. The work, as presented, accordingly has  implications for different
grammatical spheres of influence, especially theoretical and general
linguistics. 

In addition, the author has reviewed previous proposals and shown the
drawbacks of preceding accounts. His evaluations confirm a sufficient amount
of inadequacies that require alternative investigations into the conception
and meaning of TAM. Despite the fact that the topic is a scientifically
challenging area of inquiry, the author has widened this area of knowledge by
using examples from various languages. This quality has indeed provided a
universal perspective to the  analysis presented. It is thus a highly valuable
and stimulating study of temporality issues.

Moreover, the book is exceptionally specific on the investigated topic. The
latter constitutes an integral part of any theory of temporality. The subject
matter is presented in a comprehensive and methodical way. The discussion is
clear and understandable, despite the complications of the mathematical
formulas. The argumentation is exposed in a reasonable and easily followed
manner. The general outline is consistent and logical. It is characterized by
empirical accuracy and logical insightful organization. The work is excellent
and focused. It is written in a coherent and formal style. It has thus
successfully achieved its objectives. 

Taken as a whole, the book is extremely influential as it effectively
challenges previous and current views of TMA. The author has presented data
which constitute a serious challenge to previous analyses. According to
Verkuyl, the central problem lies in typological arrangements of aspectual
forms when dealing with aspect. This matter also rises in terminological
transmission. The author has shown that terminology is a real problem such
that its utilization may not usually apply homogeneously in different
languages. Similarly, it generates prototype concepts which are not clear-cut
cross-linguistically. These issues conceal the real nature of linguistic
facts, especially information about the actual meaning and makeup of
linguistic material. The compositional approach discussed in the book has thus
proven to exhibit a tremendous impact on modern linguistics.

The effectiveness of the book lies in its being a continuation of the
exploration of TMA which the author has pursued since 1972. Its main strength
lies in proposing a compositional and binary approach designing research on
temporality. Yet the work could have been better if it had simply discussed
some characteristics of the syntactic derivations of TMA components;
especially since phrase structures are provided in several places (page 53,
123, 127, 167, 170, 229, 247). Another missing theme in the book is the
interaction of TMA with other functional categories. This raises the question
of whether there is a division of labor between realization of elements and
their semantic interpretations. 

A similar issue relates to the role of complementizers in the explanation of
finiteness topic. There is agreement in the literature concerned that the
interplay between complementizers and tense  in the realization and
interpretation of finiteness in natural languages. This is the case in Arabic,
where different complementizers select for different tenses. The same issue
exists in English. The word “for” selects a tenseless complement, as in: Mary
would like for John to walk. This connectedness between complementizers and
tense is often handled by T-to-C movement. However, discussion of such cases
is absent in the book.    

Despite all of its positive, instructive, and useful qualities, the work
suffers from some drawbacks.  Some errors are scattered here and there over
the book. Evidently, these mistakes do not in any way decrease the importance
of the work. I simply mention them in order to have them included in a
potential list of errata, if a new edition is going to be published.

>From a methodological perspective, the book lacks a list of abbreviations.
This complicates reading, as readers may not remember all abbreviations. 
On page 141, the author says that some verbs in (12a) co-occur with “zijn”;
while all the given verbs are from English not Dutch. Maybe he means
corresponding verbs in Dutch. On page 257, the first paragraph talks about the
subsections of Chapter Eight. However, information about subsection 8.4 is
missing. 

In addition, there are some categorization problems in the bibliography.
Sometimes he starts with recent publications followed by old ones, as on page
311: Levin and Rappaport (1995); then it is followed by Levin and Rappaport
(1998). On page 307, the order is from old to recent. This is exemplified by:
Hale and Keyser (1998) followed by Hale and Keyser (1993). Other times, it is
complete chaos. On page 303-304, there is Broekhuis and Corver (2016), then
Broekhuis (2019). The latter is followed by Broekhuis and Verkuyl (2014) after
that Broekhuis et al. (2015).  On page 309, there is Kennedy, C. and Levin, B.
(2008) followed by Kennedy, C. and McNally, L. (1999). On page 316, Seuren, P.
A. M. (1973) comes after Seuren, P. A. M. (1978). On the same page, the work
of Stowell is arranged incorrectly. He starts with Stowell, T. (1995a). It is
then sequenced by Stowell, T. (2012) which precedes Stowell, T. (1995b). The
latter is followed by Stowell, T. (2007). On page 318, Verkuyl, H. J. (1972a)
is preceded by Verkuyl, H. J., and Le Loux-Schuringa, J. A. (1985). On page
320, Westerståhl, Dag. (1984) comes after Westerståhl, Dag. (1989).
There are also many other minor problems with the text, as listed below:
P. 8, §2, line 3.
“The first problem is here that” should be: “The first problem here is that”  

P. 8, §2, last line.
“from an choice” should be: “from a choice”

P. 10, §3. Aristotle (1048b) is mentioned, but it is not in the references.

P. 12, §3, line 4 (last).
“section 2.2 examines critically”… It should be “section 2.2 critically
examines”

P. 25, §2, line 8.
“into E-R, R-E and R,S…”
That is not the horizontal division in table 2.7.

P. 25, example (8a)
In the transliteration, “la cuisine” should be “the kitchen”

On page 23, subsection 2.1.5. has three other subordinate subsections. They
are numbered 1, 2 and 3. Their numbers ought to be 2.1.5.1, 2.1.5.2, and
2.1.5.3. Another observation is that the three parts have their titles and the
text forming the same paragraph. See pages 25, 27, and 28.
P. 34, §2, line 15. 
“the door be will open” should be “the door will be open”

P. 51, §2, line 9.
“expected ahead us” should be “expected ahead of us”.

P. 51, footnote 3, line 1.
“may unknown to us” should be “may be unknown to us”
P. 53, figure 3.2. (adopted from Arche (2014)) is not syntactically
consistent. For example, the daughter of TP is T’, yet the daughter of AspP is
AspP’. For VP, the daughter is VP’ and the lower node is VP.
P. 54, §2, line 2 after example (2).
“Asp ≃” is represented as “Asp ~” in (2). The dash part has disappeared.

P. 57, footnote 8.
“differents views” should be “different views”    

P. 60, §2, line 5.
“ Here is suffices to say” should be “ Here it suffices to say”

P. 65, §2, line 5.
“in figure 3.6” should be “in figure 3.5”

P. 66, §2, line 4.
“in (14a,b)” should be “in (15a,b)”

P. 66, §2, line 6.
“in (14c,d)” should be “in (15c,d)”

P. 69, §2, line 14-15.
“the office at a (for us) unknown time” should be “the office at an unknown
time (for us)”

P. 73.
Example (24) should be (26). Example (25) should be (27). (24) and (25) are
already on page 72. Note the absence of (26) and (27) on page 73-74.

P. 94, footnote 1.
Cactus (2000) is mentioned, but the web address is not on the bibliography
list.

P. 121, §2, line 3.
“for an formula” should be “for a formula”

P. 132, §1, line 2-3.
The subordinate clause is ungrammatical or incomplete.

P. 142, §2, line 3.
“in chapter 4.2.1” should be either “in chapter 4” or “in sub-section 4.2.1”

P. 148, §2, line 4.
“the split in the lists of verbs in (12) and (19)…”
In (19), on page (146), there is no splitting of verbs into (19a) and (19b). 

P. 156, §1, line 6.
“…may be have been involved…” should be “…may have been involved…”

P. 176.
Figure 6.4 contains three elements which are introduced in the text as (6.4a),
(6.4b) and (6.4c). Yet the illustration does not contain a-b-c indications.

P. 177, §3, line 7.
“which makes (5a)…” should be “which makes (5b)…”

P. 184, §2, line 6.
The discussion of the adverbials in (5a) and (25a) is somehow confusing.
Personally, I do not see in what way (5a) involves habituality or
repetitivity. The expression, Ron saw Mary in the morning, is simply about an
event that took place sometime in a single morning. Once a quantifier is
present, the habitual reading becomes available as in: Ron saw Mary every
morning.
P. 207, example (74).
 The example is presented as:
(74) 1. ______
 2. ______
Yet in the text it is referred to as (74a) and (74b)

P. 211.
The title of chapter seven, “How to Deal Binarily with…?” seems to be
ungrammatical. It should be “How to Binarily Deal with…?” the reason is that
lexical verbs do not precede adverbs in English.

P. 220, §4, line 1. 
“…difference between (10a) and (10b).” should be “…difference between (10a)
and (10c).”

P. 232, §3, line 1. 
“…third criterion of for defining…” should be “…third criterion for defining…”

P. 254, §2, line 7. 
“…that there be at least one possible…” should be “…that there is at least one
possible…”

P. 263, §2, line 10. 
“suffix…drai is a present tense form..”
According to French text-books on conjugations, this claim is not true.
Accordingly, -drai cannot be a present tense form. It is an indicator of
future tense represented by the suffix –rai. The appearance of the morpheme
-d- is an indicator of verb type. It emerges with third group verbs in French
conjugations. 
P. 278, §2, line 1 after example (23). 
“…redefinition ensures is that…” should be “…redefinition ensures that…”

P. 289, §2, line 18-19. 
“…also accounts formally for..” should be “…also formally accounts for..”

Once again, all of the above mentioned inaccuracies do not actually detract
from the importance of the book. It ultimately remains a valuable piece of
research. Its importance resides in its composite research topic together with
its treatment of different grammatical spheres of influence, namely: syntax,
morphology, semantics, and pragmatics. I very much appreciate the depth and
intensity of the covered issues. I therefore highly recommend it for graduate
students and specialized researcher audiences desiring to explore temporality
and remain aware of improvements in the field of functional categories,
especially finiteness issues.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

I am a Professor at Cadi Ayyad University, the Poly-disciplinary Faculty of
Safi. My main interests are Syntax and morpho-syntax of Tashelhiyt Berber,
Moroccan Arabic and Literary Arabic. I have great interests in the area of
functional categories. I enjoy teaching and seek to contribute to educational
reform in Morocco.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2022 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
  to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
     ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
                   https://crowdfunding.iu.edu/the-linguist-list

                        Let's make this a short fund drive!
                Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
                    https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-33-3590	
----------------------------------------------------------