Perfective-Imperfective

[Patrick C. Ryan]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

From: Larry Trask <larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk>
Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 3:45 PM

Dear Larry and Lloyd and IEists:

In this posting, I will attempt to address the questions that Larry (3.9.99)
has brought up concerning my posting of 29.8.99, and those brought up by Lloyd
in his subsequent comments (8.9.99).

[PR]

Larry, for example, in his dictionary defines "perfective" as "A superordinate
aspectual category involving a lack of explicit reference to the internal
temporal consistency of a situation", which, I believe is most unhelpful.

[LT]
But it's accurate. ;-)

Don't believe me? Here's Bernard Comrie, writing in his book Aspect, p. 12:
"The term `perfective' contrasts with `imperfective', and denotes a situation
viewed in its entirety, without regard to internal temporal constituency."

[PR]

Several points need to be made concerning Larry's overly confident statement.

1. Yes, it is obvious that you adopted Comrie's 1981 definition of
'(im)perfective' in its entirety.

2. But you are far less candid than Comrie about its 'accuracy', who also says,
on p. 11 of _Aspect_: "As already indicated, in discussions of aspect, as
opposed to many other areas of linguistics, there is no generally accepted
terminology".

A. Now you may think, Larry, that because *you* have adopted Comrie's
definition of '(im)perfective', and published it in your dictionary of
grammatical terms, that you have certified the general acceptance of the
definition. It strains my credulity - if it does not yours - to believe that
all those, who in 1981, held different opinions regarding the definition of
'perfective', which *Comrie* recognized, were instantly persuaded when the
oracle spoke, or you published.

And, in fact, we can easily find recent evidence that *all* linguists do not
subscribe to the theories of Comrie, his definitions, nor the deductions that
have been made from them; see, e.g.:

Vincent deCaen, "Parameters of Aspect", in the Linguist archives.

3. I have delayed responding to Larry and Lloyd pending the arrival and
thorough reading of Comrie's book, _Aspect_. Unfortunately, I found what I
suspected I would find. Comrie offers his odd definition of 'perfective', which
in my opinion is on a par with the meaningless pseudo-definitions of the
idealist philosophers, without the slightest attempt to justify it.

4. Now Larry refers to the "superordinate" nature of 'perfective/imperfective'.
And Comrie's awkward definition *may* be loosely interpreted as Lloyd did when
he affirmed Comrie's definition and equated it with his own term.

I can interpret Comrie's Gothic definition myself: I interpret *his*
"perfective" to mean: 'a verbal action characterized as a point in time'; and
*his* "imperfective" to mean: 'a verbal action characterized as points in
time'.

But, these definitions already have familiar names: 'momentary', a term that
the eminent linguist W. P. Lehmann uses but Larry has not seen fit to enter in
his grammatical dictionary (why???), and since he prefers 'punctual', he
obviously is unwilling to recognize anyone else's preferences; and 'durative'
(Larry does include that; thank you, Larry).

Now Larry does not dispute the connection between 'punctual' with the
'perfective' (in fact, he calls it a "subdivision") nor yet between 'durative'
with the 'impefective' (again, he calls it a "subdivison").

What is the relevance of all this to Indo-European?

W. P. Lehmann in _Proto-Indo-European Syntax_, describes the fundamental pair
of forms of the IE root: CV'C, 'durative', and CVC', 'momentary' (Larry's
'punctual').

These forms are anterior to any further inflections, and therefore may be
characterized as "superordinate".

Now, I have no problem with the introduction of *new* terms for old concepts. I
have no problem with 'punctual' for 'momentary'. Old wine in new bottles may
enhance the experience.

But, I could not disagree more with Lloyd's position that: "There is nothing we
can do about such terminological confusions, given that particular grammatical
traditions use terms in ways different from their current universal meanings."

It is my impression that he basically concurs with the assignments of meaning
given by Comrie and adopted by Larry.

I think that is gravely wrong.

I attempted to show that 'perfective' had an established meaning that differed
from Comrie's and Larry's by citing a definition from Pei's older linguistic
dictionary.

It is a most unattractive experience to see a scholar's work dismissed *without
an argument* on the basis of a cruel ad hominem attack.

[This is what LT wrote]

"Well, if I may be permitted an aside, I think anybody who relies on Pei's 1954
dictionary as his linguistic bible is in serious trouble. Pei's dictionary is
now woefully outdated, and it wasn't exactly state of the art when he wrote it:
Pei was not a linguist (practitioner of linguistics), but a polyglot who
developed a side line in writing popular books about linguistics at a time when
there weren't many.

In one of his other books, Pei attempted a characterization of the Japanese
noun. His account is exhaustively divided into four sections, entitled `Case',
`Number', `Article' and `Gender' -- none of which properties is in fact
possessed by the Japanese noun. Bernard Bloch, reviewing this book in Language,
described it as 'an entertaining collection of miscellaneous observations, many
of them true'. This is an unbeatable succinct summary of Pei's linguistic
efforts."

[PR continues]

If any of you who do not know Larry's style was actually looking for an
argument that would show nicely how Pei's definition of 'perfective' ("a verbal
aspect expressing a non-habitual or one-time action, or an action considered
from the point of view of its completion") was inferior to Comrie's, cited
above, you would, of course, have been disappointed.

But even Larry's ad hominem's against Pei are not really valid. If Pei were a
greengrocer rather than a polyglot, that origin would not prevent him from
citing a valid definition of 'perfective'.

Now, I wonder how many of the readers of this list believe that Pei -
regardless of what he was or was not - personally concocted *all* the
definitions in his dictionary. Is it perhaps likelier that he utilized
definitions that were current among linguists at the time of his writing?

Larry, in contrast to Comrie, who is much more open about disagreement, perhaps
is unaware that linguists disagree with him and Comrie though Comrie is not.

Next, Larry heaped ridicule on a work by Pei on Japanese. The question of
whether Pei was right or wrong in his analysis of Japanese has no bearing
whatsoever on the question of whether he selected a definition of 'perfective'
that was current in his day, let alone whether they or he were right or wrong
in defining it so,

Of course, the implication is that Pei is an inferior scholar, firstly; and
then secondly, that his definitions are passe.

Well, the Web usually provides up-to-date information if any source does, and
the new Merriam-Webster dictionary had this to say:

Main Entry: per·fec·tive
Pronunciation: p&r-'fek-tiv also 'p&r-fik-
Function: adjective
Date: 1596
1 archaic a : tending to make perfect b : becoming better
2 : expressing action as complete or as implying the notion of completion,
conclusion, or result <perfective verb>

[ Moderator's 8- to 7-bit transcription:

  Main Entry: per{\cdot}fec{\cdot}tive

  \cdot is the TeX command to produce a dot centered on the line
  --rma ]

Well, of course, the writers of dictionaries only record what they consider to
be usage; and, horribile dictu, they are not even (practicing) linguists.

So, regardless of the boundless light that Comrie has shed on the concept of
'perfective', apparently, unless the scholars at MW are incompetent as well as
non-linguists, Pei's definition is not far from what many of us non-practicing
linguists and other ignoramuses are employing today.

And, of course, the AHD, which has some pretentions of being linguistically
oriented, defines it as: "perfective aspect. An aspect of verbs that expresses
a completed action as distinct from a continuing or not necessarily completed
action".

Now, if these dictionaries were arrogantly imposing their ideas of what
'perfective' *should be* on a gullible readership, that would be a serious
matter. But that is not what they are doing! They are recording, accurately or
inaccurately, *USAGE*.

Now I wrote previously:

As grammarians of those languages in which the perfective aspect is prominent
know, the essence of the perfective is "one which describes an action which has
been or will be definitely completed" (The Russian Verb, Nevill Forbes, Oxford,
1961).

This usage, I have showed, is old and but also current among non-Comrie/Trask
adherents, and for anyone who stops for one moment to consider what 'perfectum'
acually means ('completed'), it is natural and logical and appropriate. To use
it in another way is unjustified under any circumstances, and the constant
modish redefinition of terms is part of the problem in linguistics today. No
one knows for sure what the hell you are talking about!

[LR responded]

But, among Russianists, the term `perfective' is used in a somewhat distinctive
way to denote a formal distinction which is regularly made in that language. I
might usefully have noted this in my dictionary, but unfortunately I wrote the
book within a severe length limit, and I was obliged to omit a number of things
I might have preferred to include.

Anyway, I am not sure that Forbes's characterization of the Russian perfective
is entirely accurate, since it does not match what I have read elsewhere. But
I'm not entitled to an opinion here. Maybe somebody else on the list can
comment.

[PR]

Notice the subtle ad hominem! Forbes grammar, which has been a respected
standard for many years, is slyly slighted.

[LT continued]

Forbes, and Ryan, appear to be confusing *perfective* aspect with *completive*
aspect -- which is not the same thing.

[PR]

It is perhaps not surprising that I did not employ in my answers the term
"*completive* since it nowhere appears in Larry's dictionary due to severe
length limits, no doubt,

And there is a better reason for its non-inclusion: it was not needed then, and
it is not needed now. The preserved meaning of 'perfective' (not Comrie's
re-definition) perfectly (pun!) covers it.

[LT added]

perfective = no internal structure
completive = completion

[PR]

However illuminating these definitions might be thought to be ("completive =
completion"; who could have a problem with that?), Larry's short definition for
'perfective', i.e. 'no internal structure', is simply incredible. There is no
possible verbal action which does not have 'internal structure' *in this
universe*!

[LT continued]

Of course, a perfective often does denote a completed action, and hence the
confusion, but it need not do so and often does not. If I write `Wallace
Stevens lived in Hartford', then the form is perfective, but there is this time
no suggestion of completion. Indeed, it's not even clear to me what
`completion' might denote in this context, since living in a place is an atelic
activity, and completion is surely only relevant to telic activities.

[PR responds]

I sometimes wonder if Larry reasons in this way or merely argues in this way.

The sentence 'Wallace Stevens lived in Hartford' is *not* perfective since, as
Larry correctly notes, only telic activities can be completed or considered to
be in the process of completion. What anyone who speaks English without wishing
to impose a pre-defined and artificial interpretation on it would understand
was that Wallace lived in Hartford for some indefinite or understood or
immaterial period of time, which makes it 'durative'; and I would be willing to
wager that his life there had some "internal structure".

[PR continued]

Larry writes that the perfective aspect "is chiefly expressed by the simple
past-tense form",

[LT interjected]

In *English*, and in the past tense.

[PR continued]

and then offers the example "The hamster climbed up behind the bookcase." But
he obviously does not realize that the "up" is what, in this case, makes the
verb of perfective aspect.

[LT responded]

No. This is a misunderstanding. At most, that `up' indicates completion, not
perfectivity. `The hamster climbed the curtain' is just as perfective as `The
hamster climbed up the curtain', though you may feel that the second version
implies completeness more strongly than the first.

[PR comments]

Yes, it is a misunderstanding on your part and Comrie's of what the
'perfective' means based on its etymology and previous and continuing usage.
What you and Comrie choose to call 'imperfective' is simply 'durative'; and
what you both call 'perfective', already has a name: 'punctual' or 'momentary'.

The sentence Larry offered can be variously interpreted according to the
context; without a context, it cannot be definitively interpreted :

'After the hamster climbed up behind the bookcase, I came into the room.'

Obviously, here the commonest interpretation will be 'punctual' or 'momentary'
AND 'perfective.'

'The hamster climbed up behind the bookcase while I came into the room.'

Here, the commonest interpretation will be 'durative' BUT STILL 'perfective'.

[PR gave some further erxamples]

"The hamster (has) climbed up behind the bookcase."
"The hamster climbs up behind the bookcase."
"The hamster will climb up behind the bookcase."

All above are equally "perfective".

"The hamster (has) climbed behind the bookcase."
"The hamster climbs behind the bookcase."
"The hamster will climb behind the bookcase."
All above are equally "imperfective", or would normally be construed so.

[LT objected]

No; I can't agree.

[PR responded to this laconic objection]

I am sure any of our list-members who command Russian will subscribe to this
basic division.

[LT objected]

But the facts of Russian are rather different from the facts of English, and
both languages are different from other languages. For linguists, `perfective'
is an aspectual category which may or may not be overtly marked in a given
language, by some means or other. What Russian does, or what English does, is
interesting, but it is not the alpha and omega of the issue.

[PR responds]

See how cleverly Larry shifts the question to a strawman issue. I am not
asserting that the "facts of Russian are (not) different from the facts of
English". Anyone who did would be simply ignorant. And another strawman: I am
not asserting that the 'perfective', however it may be defined, is overtly
marked in any given language.

The alpha and omega of the issue is rather: is there a concept which, marked or
not, is discernible in some fashion, and which recognizes a difference between
durative and punctual/momentary verbal activity?

And the answer to that is resoundingly "Yes". And for the very simplest of
reasons. In discourse, it has been *universally* found to be useful to
discriminate between a situation in which an action which precedes or follows
another action (punctual/momentary), and a situation in which an action is
simultaneous with another action (durative). A language-speaker who was
incapable of making this distinction when clarity required it would be
linguistically developmentally disadvantaged.

Is there any such language? NO!

Now I have omitted the mini-discussion regarding 'reflexive' because this
posting is already too long. I will be glad to discuss its merits or lack of
merit at some subsequent time if there is any further interest.

[LT continued]

No. While possibly traditional, the confusion between perfective and completive
is harmful and not to be propagated.

[PR interjects]

And this is so revealing and sad! Read again what Larry wrote above and see if
you are not similarly saddened. Well, there is always the possibility of a
Linguistic Inquisition.

[LT continued]

Many of our predecessors also maintained that English nouns have five or six
cases, but they were wrong, and there can be no justification for propagating
their confusion between case-marking and grammatical relations.

[PR]

Larry is, of course, free to assume that only his ideas have validity however
unattractive that position may be. What he will never admit is that his choices
(Comrie, etc.) are *choices*, and not glimpses of the Eternal Truth that has
been denied all those of us who disagree with him and his *choices*.

IMHO, there is a case (pun!) to be made for more than two cases in English
singular nouns based on their grammatical relations. Of course, Larry prefers
to acknowledge only as a case that which has been overtly marked. This is not
too objectionable until one realizes that there are languages other than
English which might be consulted. For example, hardly anyone would question
that IE had an accusative case, which is frequently marked. However, in IE
neuter nouns have one form for nominative and accusative. If we follow the
logic applied to English nouns, should we say that IE neuter nouns had no
accusative; or that IE neuter nouns had no nominative? Or should we say that,
in neuter nouns, the nominative and accusative cases have the same marking;
and, applied to English, that the nominative and accusative cases of the noun
have the same marking (0)?

I am also omitting the discussion of 'definiteness', which I will also be glad
to take up later.

Finally (thank God, they say), I wish to address a point made by Lloyd.

[LA wrote]

It is a well known fact among specialists in verbal aspect (of which I am one,
have done extensive typology of verbal aspect) that what is CALLED "Perfective"
in the grammatical tradition of a particular language may or may not bear any
relation to what is apparently the same term intended in its universal sense.

In the case of Russian, the so-called "perfectives" are, just as Larry Trask
says, normally telic completives, rather than being typical perfectives.

Thus the following sentence is approximately true:

Russian "Perfectives" are not perfectives.

[PR responds]

I think it is unpardonable for the possibility to exist that "what is CALLED
'Perfective' in the grammatical tradition of a particular language . . . may
not bear any relation to what is apparently the same term intended in its
universal sense."

Of what conceivable value is it to take a term, 'perfective', which had, and
apparently still continues to have a definition at odds which the "universal"
one, and apply it to a new category?

If there is a category which may or may not subsume the given traditional
perfectives, and no word existed for it, a word should have been invented or
coined!

But, in fact, there is a happy conclusion to all this. There is no need to coin
a word for the basal distinction that Comrie and Larry seek to make with the
misapplication and distortion of the terms 'imperfective' and 'perfective'.

Terms already exist: 'durative' and 'punctual/momentary'. And I challenge Trask
or anyone else to show me and the readers of this list an instance of Comrie's
and Larry's 'perfective/imperfective' that cannot be related to these concepts.

'Perfective' and 'imperfective' should be re-defined and restored to their
traditional meanings. While Larry may scoff at Pei, dictionaries (after all,
not written by linguists), I dare him to scoff at W. P. Lehmann, who, in his
book on Proto-Indo-European synatx, *clearly* employs 'perfective' in the
traditional sense, a category of IE which is indicated by the "perfect"
endings.

Pat