aspect (linguistics)

In linguistics, aspect is a grammatical category that expresses how an action, event, or state, as denoted by a verb, extends over time. Perfective aspect is used in referring to an event conceived as bounded and unitary, without reference to any flow of time during ("I helped him"). Imperfective aspect is used for situations conceived as existing continuously or repetitively as time flows ("I was helping him"; "I used to help people").

Further distinctions can be made, for example, to distinguish states and ongoing actions (continuous and progressive aspects) from repetitive actions (habitual aspect).

Certain aspectual distinctions express a relation between the time of the event and the time of reference. This is the case with the perfect aspect, which indicates that an event occurred prior to (but has continuing relevance at) the time of reference: "I have eaten"; "I had eaten"; "I will have eaten".

Different languages make different grammatical aspectual distinctions; some (such as Standard German; see below) do not make any. The marking of aspect is often conflated with the marking of tense and mood (see tense–aspect–mood). Aspectual distinctions may be restricted to certain tenses: in Latin and the Romance languages, for example, the perfective–imperfective distinction is marked in the past tense, by the division between preterites and imperfects. Explicit consideration of aspect as a category first arose out of study of the Slavic languages; here verbs often occur in pairs, with two related verbs being used respectively for imperfective and perfective meanings.

The concept of grammatical aspect should not be confused with perfect and imperfect ''verb forms''; the meanings of the latter terms are somewhat different, and in some languages, the common names used for verb forms may not follow the actual aspects precisely.

Basic concept

History

The Indian linguist Yaska (c. 7th century BCE) dealt with grammatical aspect, distinguishing actions that are processes (''bhāva''), from those where the action is considered as a completed whole (''mūrta''). This is the key distinction between the imperfective and perfective. Yaska also applied this distinction to a verb versus an action nominal.

Grammarians of the Greek and Latin languages also showed an interest in aspect, but the idea did not enter into the modern Western grammatical tradition until the 19th century via the study of the grammar of the Slavic languages. The earliest use of the term recorded in the Oxford English Dictionary dates from 1853.

Modern usage

Aspect is often confused with the closely related concept of tense, because they both convey information about time. While tense relates the time of referent to some other time, commonly the speech event, aspect conveys other temporal information, such as duration, completion, or frequency, as it relates to the time of action. Thus tense refers to ''temporally when'' while aspect refers to ''temporally how''. Aspect can be said to describe the texture of the time in which a situation occurs, such as a single point of time, a continuous range of time, a sequence of discrete points in time, etc., whereas tense indicates its location in time.

For example, consider the following sentences: "I eat", "I am eating", "I have eaten", and "I have been eating". All are in the present tense, indicated by the present-tense verb of each sentence (''eat'', ''am'', and ''have''). Yet since they differ in aspect each conveys different information or points of view as to how the action pertains to the present.

Grammatical aspect is a ''formal'' property of a language, distinguished through overt inflection, derivational affixes, or independent words that serve as grammatically required markers of those aspects. For example, the K'iche' language spoken in Guatemala has the inflectional prefixes ''k''- and ''x''- to mark incompletive and completive aspect;Pye, Clifton (2001). "The Acquisition of Finiteness in K'iche' Maya". ''BUCLD 25: Proceedings of the 25th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development'', pp. 645–656. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Mandarin Chinese has the aspect markers -''le'' 了, -''zhe'' 着, ''zài''- 在, and -''guò'' 过 to mark the perfective, durative stative, durative progressive, and experiential aspects,Li, Charles, and Sandra Thompson (1981). "Aspect". ''Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar''. Los Angeles: University of California Press. pp. 184–237. and also marks aspect with adverbs; and English marks the continuous aspect with the verb ''to be'' coupled with present participle and the perfect with the verb ''to have'' coupled with past participle. Even languages that do not mark aspect morphologically or through auxiliary verbs, however, can convey such distinctions by the use of adverbs or other syntactic constructions.

Grammatical aspect is distinguished from lexical aspect or ''aktionsart'', which is an inherent feature of verbs or verb phrases and is determined by the nature of the situation that the verb describes.

Common aspectual distinctions

The most fundamental aspectual distinction, represented in many languages, is between perfective aspect and imperfective aspect. This is the basic aspectual distinction in the Slavic languages.

It semantically corresponds to the distinction between the morphological forms known respectively as the aorist and imperfect in Greek, the preterite and imperfect in Spanish, the simple past (''passé simple'') and imperfect in French, and the perfect and imperfect in Latin (from the Latin ''perfectus'', meaning "completed").

Essentially, the perfective aspect looks at an event as a complete action, while the imperfective aspect views an event as the process of unfolding or a repeated or habitual event (thus corresponding to the progressive/continuous aspect for events of short-term duration and to habitual aspect for longer terms).

For events of short durations in the past, the distinction often coincides with the distinction in the English language between the simple past "X-ed," as compared to the progressive "was X-ing". Compare "I wrote the letters this morning" (i.e. finished writing the letters: an action completed) and "I was writing letters this morning" (the letters may still be unfinished).

In describing longer time periods, English needs context to maintain the distinction between the habitual ("I called him often in the past" – a habit that has no point of completion) and perfective ("I called him once" – an action completed), although the construct "used to" marks both habitual aspect and past tense and can be used if the aspectual distinction otherwise is not clear.

Sometimes, English has a lexical distinction where other languages may use the distinction in grammatical aspect. For example, the English verbs "to know" (the state of knowing) and "to find out" (knowing viewed as a "completed action") correspond to the imperfect and perfect forms of the equivalent verbs in French and Spanish, ''savoir'' and ''saber''. This is also true when the sense of verb "to know" is "to know somebody", in this case opposed in aspect to the verb "to meet" (or even to the construction "to get to know"). These correspond to imperfect and perfect forms of ''conocer'' in Spanish, and ''connaître'' in French. In German, on the other hand, the distinction is also lexical (as in English) through verbs ''kennen'' and ''kennenlernen'', although the semantic relation between both forms is much more straightforward since ''kennen'' means "to know" and ''lernen'' means "to learn".

Aspect vs. tense

The Germanic languages combine the concept of aspect with the concept of tense. Although English largely separates tense and aspect formally, its aspects (neutral, progressive, perfect, progressive perfect, and n the past tensehabitual) do not correspond very closely to the distinction of perfective vs. imperfective that is found in most languages with aspect. Furthermore, the separation of tense and aspect in English is not maintained rigidly. One instance of this is the alternation, in some forms of English, between sentences such as "Have you eaten?" and "Did you eat?".

In European languages, rather than locating an event time, the way tense does, aspect describes "the internal temporal constituency of a situation", or in other words, aspect is a way "of conceiving the flow of the process itself".Bernard Comrie, 1976. ''Aspect''. Cambridge University Press English aspectual distinctions in the past tense include "I went, I used to go, I was going, I had gone"; in the present tense "I lose, I am losing, I have lost, I have been losing, I am going to lose"; and with the future modal "I will see, I will be seeing, I will have seen, I am going to see". What distinguishes these aspects within each tense is not (necessarily) when the event occurs, but how the time in which it occurs is viewed: as complete, ongoing, consequential, planned, etc.

In most dialects of Ancient Greek, aspect is indicated uniquely by verbal morphology. For example, the very frequently used aorist, though a functional preterite in the indicative mood, conveys historic or 'immediate' aspect in the subjunctive and optative. The perfect in all moods is used as an aspectual marker, conveying the sense of a resultant state. E.g. – I see (present); – I saw (aorist); – I am in a state of having seen = I know (perfect).

Also Turkish has a same/similar aspect such as "Görmüş bulunuyorum/durumdayım", where "görmüş" means "having seen" and "bulunuyorum/durumdayım" means "I am in the state".

In many Sino-Tibetan languages, such as Mandarin, verbs lack grammatical markers of tense, but are rich in aspect (Heine, Kuteva 2010, p. 10). Markers of aspect are attached to verbs to indicate aspect. Event time is inferred through use of these aspectual markers, along with optional inclusion of adverbs.

Lexical vs. grammatical aspect

There is a distinction between grammatical aspect, as described here, and lexical aspect. Other terms for the contrast ''lexical vs. grammatical'' include: ''situation vs. viewpoint'' and ''inner vs. outer''. Lexical aspect, also known as aktionsart, is an inherent property of a verb or verb-complement phrase, and is not marked formally. The distinctions made as part of lexical aspect are different from those of grammatical aspect. Typical distinctions are between states ("I owned"), activities ("I shopped"), accomplishments ("I painted a picture"), achievements ("I bought"), and punctual, or semelfactive, events ("I sneezed"). These distinctions are often relevant syntactically. For example, states and activities, but not usually achievements, can be used in English with a prepositional ''for''-phrase describing a time duration: "I had a car for five hours", "I shopped for five hours", but not "*I bought a car for five hours". Lexical aspect is sometimes called '' Aktionsart'', especially by German and Slavic linguists. Lexical or situation aspect is marked in Athabaskan languages.

One of the factors in situation aspect is telicity. Telicity might be considered a kind of lexical aspect, except that it is typically not a property of a verb in isolation, but rather a property of an entire verb ''phrase''. Achievements, accomplishments and semelfactives have telic situation aspect, while states and activities have atelic situation aspect.

The other factor in situation aspect is duration, which is also a property of a verb phrase. Accomplishments, states, and activities have duration, while achievements and semelfactives do not.

Indicating aspect

In some languages, aspect and time are very clearly separated, making them much more distinct to their speakers. There are a number of languages that mark aspect much more saliently than time. Prominent in this category are Chinese and American Sign Language, which both differentiate many aspects but rely exclusively on optional time-indicating terms to pinpoint an action with respect to time. In other language groups, for example in most modern Indo-European languages (except Slavic languages and some Indo-Aryan languages like Hindi), aspect has become almost entirely conflated, in the verbal morphological system, with time.

In Russian, aspect is more salient than tense in narrative. Russian, like other Slavic languages, uses different lexical entries for the different aspects, whereas other languages mark them morphologically, and still others with auxiliaries (e.g., English).

In Hindi, the aspect marker is overtly separated from the tense/mood marker. Periphrastic Hindi verb forms consist of two elements. The first of these two elements is the aspect marker and the second element (the copula) is the common tense/mood marker.

In literary Arabic ( ''al-fuṣḥā'') the verb has two aspect-tenses: perfective (past), and imperfective (non-past). There is some disagreement among grammarians whether to view the distinction as a distinction in aspect, or tense, or both. The past verb ( ''al-fiʿl al-māḍī'') denotes an event ( ''ḥadaṯ'') completed in the past, but it says nothing about the relation of this past event to present status. For example, ''waṣala'', "arrived", indicates that arrival occurred in the past without saying anything about the present status of the arriver – maybe they stuck around, maybe they turned around and left, etc. – nor about the aspect of the past event except insofar as completeness can be considered aspectual. This past verb is clearly similar if not identical to the Greek aorist, which is considered a tense but is more of an aspect marker. In the Arabic, aorist aspect is the logical consequence of past tense. By contrast, the "Verb of Similarity" ( ''al-fiʿl al-muḍāriʿ''), so called because of its resemblance to the active participial noun, is considered to denote an event in the present or future without committing to a specific aspectual sense beyond the incompleteness implied by the tense: (''yaḍribu'', he strikes/is striking/will strike/etc.). Those are the only two "tenses" in Arabic (not counting ''amr'', command or imperative, which is traditionally considered as denoting future events.) To explicitly mark aspect, Arabic uses a variety of lexical and syntactic devices.

Contemporary Arabic dialects are another matter. One major change from al-fuṣḥā is the use of a prefix particle ( ''bi'' in Egyptian and Levantine dialects—though it may have a slightly different range of functions in each dialect) to explicitly mark progressive, continuous, or habitual aspect: , ''bi-yiktib'', he is now writing, writes all the time, etc.

Aspect can mark the stage of an action. The prospective aspect is a combination of tense and aspect that indicates the action is in preparation to take place. The inceptive aspect identifies the beginning stage of an action (e.g. Esperanto uses '' ek-'', e.g. ''Mi ekmanĝas'', "I am beginning to eat".) and inchoative and ingressive aspects identify a change of state (''The flowers started blooming'') or the start of an action (''He started running''). Aspects of stage continue through progressive, pausative, resumptive, cessive, and terminative.

Important qualifications:

*Although the perfective is often thought of as representing a "momentary action", this is not strictly correct. It can equally well be used for an action that took time, as long as it is ''conceived of'' as a unit, with a clearly defined start and end, such as "Last summer I visited France".
*Grammatical aspect represents a formal distinction encoded in the grammar of a language. Although languages that are described as having imperfective and perfective aspects agree in most cases in their use of these aspects, they may not agree in every situation. For example:
**Some languages have additional grammatical aspects. Spanish and Ancient Greek, for example, have a perfect (not the same as the perfective), which refers to a state resulting from a previous action (also described as a previous action with relevance to a particular time, or a previous action viewed from the perspective of a later time). This corresponds (roughly) to the "have X-ed" construction in English, as in "I have recently eaten". Languages that lack this aspect (such as Portuguese, which is closely related to Spanish) often use the past perfective to render the present perfect (compare the roughly synonymous English sentences "Have you eaten yet?" and "Did you eat yet?").
**In some languages, the formal representation of aspect is optional, and can be omitted when the aspect is clear from context or does not need to be emphasized. This is the case, for example, in Mandarin Chinese, with the perfective suffix ''le'' and (especially) the imperfective ''zhe''.
**For some verbs in some languages, the difference between perfective and imperfective conveys an additional meaning difference; in such cases, the two aspects are typically translated using separate verbs in English. In Greek, for example, the imperfective sometimes adds the notion of "try to do something" (the so-called ''conative imperfect''); hence, the same verb, in the imperfective (present or imperfect) and aorist, respectively, is used to convey ''look'' and ''see'', ''search'' and ''find'', ''listen'' and ''hear''. (For example, ἠκούομεν (''ēkouomen'', "we listened") vs. ἠκούσαμεν (''ēkousamen'', "we heard").) Spanish has similar pairs for certain verbs, such as (imperfect and preterite, respectively) ''sabía'' ("I knew") vs. ''supe'' ("I found out"), ''podía'' ("I was able to") vs. ''pude'' ("I succeeded (in doing something)"), ''quería'' ("I wanted to") vs. ''quise'' ("I tried to"), and ''no quería'' ("I did not want to") vs. ''no quise'' ("I refused (to do something)"). Such differences are often highly language-specific.

By language

Germanic languages

English

The English tense–aspect system has two morphologically distinct tenses, past and non-past, the latter of which is also known as the ''present-future'' or, more commonly and less formally, simply the ''present''. No marker of a distinct future tense exists on the verb in English; the futurity of an event may be expressed through the use of the auxiliary verbs "will" and " shall", by a non-past form plus an adverb, as in "tomorrow we will go to New York City", or by some other means. Past is distinguished from non-past, in contrast, with internal modifications of the verb. These two tenses may be modified further for progressive aspect (also called ''continuous'' aspect), for the perfect, or for both. These two aspectual forms are also referred to as BE +ING and HAVE +EN, respectively, which avoids what may be unfamiliar terminology.

Aspects of the present tense:
* Present simple (not progressive, not perfect): "I eat"
* Present progressive (progressive, not perfect): "I am eating"
* Present perfect (not progressive, perfect): "I have eaten"
* Present perfect progressive (progressive, perfect): "I have been eating"
(While many elementary discussions of English grammar classify the present perfect as a past tense, it relates the action to the present time. One cannot say of someone now deceased that they "have eaten" or "have been eating". The present auxiliary implies that they are in some way ''present'' (alive), even when the action denoted is completed (perfect) or partially completed (progressive perfect).)

Aspects of the past tense:
* Past simple (not progressive, not perfect): "I ate"
* Past progressive (progressive, not perfect): "I was eating"
* Past perfect (not progressive, perfect): "I had eaten"
* Past perfect progressive (progressive, perfect): "I had been eating"

Aspects can also be marked on non-finite forms of the verb: "(to) be eating" ( infinitive with progressive aspect), "(to) have eaten" (infinitive with perfect aspect), "having eaten" (present participle or gerund with perfect aspect), etc. The perfect infinitive can further be governed by modal verbs to express various meanings, mostly combining modality with past reference: "I should have eaten" etc. In particular, the modals ''will'' and ''shall'' and their subjunctive forms ''would'' and ''should'' are used to combine future or hypothetical reference with aspectual meaning:
* Simple future, simple conditional: "I will eat", "I would eat"
* Future progressive, conditional progressive: "I will be eating", "I would be eating"
* Future perfect, conditional perfect: "I will have eaten", "I would have eaten"
* Future perfect progressive, conditional perfect progressive: "I will have been eating", "I would have been eating"

The uses of the progressive and perfect aspects are quite complex. They may refer to the viewpoint of the speaker:

:I was walking down the road when I met Michael Jackson's lawyer. (Speaker viewpoint in middle of action)
:I have traveled widely, but I have never been to Moscow. (Speaker viewpoint at end of action)

But they can have other illocutionary forces or additional modal components:

:You are being stupid now. (You are doing it deliberately)
:You are not having chocolate with your sausages! (I forbid it)
:I am having lunch with Mike tomorrow. (It is decided)

English expresses some other aspectual distinctions with other constructions. ''Used to'' + VERB is a past habitual, as in "I used to go to school," and ''going to / gonna'' + VERB is a prospective, a future situation highlighting current intention or expectation, as in "I'm going to go to school next year."

African American Vernacular English

The aspectual systems of certain dialects of English, such as African-American Vernacular English (see for example habitual be), and of creoles based on English vocabulary, such as Hawaiian Creole English, are quite different from those of standard English, and often reflect a more elaborate paradigm of aspectual distinctions (often at the expense of tense). The following table, appearing originally in Green (2002) shows the possible aspectual distinctions in AAVE in their prototypical, negative and stressed/emphatic affirmative forms:

German vernacular and colloquial

Although Standard German does not have aspects, many Upper German languages, all West Central German languages, and some more vernacular German languages do make one aspectual distinction, and so do the colloquial languages of many regions, the so-called German regiolects. While officially discouraged in schools and seen as 'bad language', local English teachers like the distinction, because it corresponds well with the English continuous form. It is formed by the conjugated auxiliary verb ''sein'' ("to be") followed by the preposition "am" and the infinitive, or the nominalized verb. The latter two are phonetically indistinguishable; in writing, capitalization differs: "Ich war am essen" vs. "Ich war am Essen" (I was eating, compared to the Standard German approximation: "Ich war beim Essen"); yet these forms are not standardized and thus are relatively infrequently written down or printed, even in quotations or direct speech.

In the Tyrolean and other Bavarian regiolect the prefix *da can be found, which form perfective aspects. "I hu's gleant" (Ich habe es gelernt = I learnt it) vs. "I hu's daleant" (*Ich habe es DAlernt = I succeeded in learning).

Dutch

In Dutch (a West Germanic language), two types of continuous form are used. Both types are considered Standard Dutch.

The first type is very similar to the non-standard German type. It is formed by the conjugated auxiliary verb ''zijn'' ("to be"), followed by ''aan het'' and the gerund (which in Dutch matches the infinitive). For example:

* Present progressive: ''Ik ben aan het werken'' ("I am working")
* Past progressive: ''Ik was aan het werken'' ("I was working")
* Future progressive: ''Ik zal aan het werken zijn'' ("I will be working")

The second type is formed by one of the conjugated auxiliary verbs ''liggen'' ("to lie"), ''zitten'' ("to sit"), ''hangen'' ("to hang"), ''staan'' ("to stand") or ''lopen'' ("to walk"), followed by the preposition ''te'' and the infinitive. The conjugated verbs indicate the stance of the subject performing or undergoing the action.

* Present progressive: ''Ik zit te eten'' ("I am eating hile sitting), ''De was hangt te drogen'' ("The laundry is drying hile hanging)
* Past progressive: ''Ik lag te lezen'' ("I was reading hile lying), ''Ik stond te kijken'' ("I was watching hile standing)
* Future progressive: ''Ik zal zitten te werken'' ("I will be working hile sitting)

Sometimes the meaning of the auxiliary verb is diminished to 'being engaged in'. Take for instance these examples:

* ''De leraar zit steeds te zeggen dat we moeten luisteren'' ("The teacher keeps telling us to listen")
* ''Iedereen loopt te beweren dat het goed was'' ("Everyone keeps on saying that it was good")
* ''Zit niet zo te zeuren'' ("Stop whining")

In these cases, there is generally an undertone of irritation.

Slavic languages

The Slavic languages make a clear distinction between perfective and imperfective aspects; it was in relation to these languages that the modern concept of aspect originally developed.

In Slavic languages, a given verb is, in itself, either perfective or imperfective. Consequently, each language contains many pairs of verbs, corresponding to each other in meaning, except that one expresses perfective aspect and the other imperfective. (This may be considered a form of lexical aspect.) Perfective verbs are commonly formed from imperfective ones by the addition of a prefix, or else the imperfective verb is formed from the perfective one by modification of the stem or ending. Suppletion also plays a small role. Perfective verbs cannot generally be used with the meaning of a present tense – their present-tense forms in fact have future reference. An example of such a pair of verbs, from Polish, is given below:
*Infinitive (and dictionary form): ''pisać'' ("to write", imperfective); ''napisać'' ("to write", perfective)
*Present/simple future tense: ''pisze'' ("writes"); ''napisze'' ("will write", perfective)
*Compound future tense (imperfective only): ''będzie pisać'' ("will write, will be writing")
*Past tense: ''pisał'' ("was writing, used to write, wrote", imperfective); ''napisał'' ("wrote", perfective)

In at least the East Slavic and West Slavic languages, there is a three-way aspect differentiation for verbs of motion with the determinate imperfective, indeterminate imperfective, and perfective. The two forms of imperfective can be used in all three tenses (past, present, and future), but the perfective can only be used with past and future. The indeterminate imperfective expresses habitual aspect (or motion in no single direction), while the determinate imperfective expresses progressive aspect. The difference corresponds closely to that between the English "I (regularly) go to school" and "I am going to school (now)". The three-way difference is given below for the Russian basic (unprefixed) verbs of motion.

When prefixes are attached to Russian verbs of motion they become more or less normal imperfective/perfective pairs, with the indeterminate imperfective becoming the prefixed imperfective and the determinate imperfective becoming the prefixed perfective. For example, prefix ''при-'' ''pri-'' + indeterminate ''ходи́ть'' ''khodít'' = ''приходи́ть'' ''prikhodít'' (to arrive (on foot), impf.); and prefix ''при-'' ''pri-'' + determinate ''идти́'' ''idtí'' = ''прийти'' ''prijtí'' (to arrive (on foot), pf.).

Romance languages

Modern Romance languages merge the concepts of aspect and tense but consistently distinguish perfective and imperfective aspects in the past tense. This derives directly from the way the Latin language used to render both aspects and '' consecutio temporum''.

Italian

Italian language example using the verb ''mangiare'' ("to eat"):

The ''imperfetto''/''trapassato prossimo'' contrasts with the ''passato remoto''/''trapassato remoto'' in that ''imperfetto'' renders an imperfective (continuous) past while ''passato remoto'' expresses an aorist (punctual/historical) past.

Other aspects in Italian are rendered with other periphrases, like prospective (''io sto per mangiare'' "I'm about to eat", ''io starò per mangiare'' "I shall be about to eat"), or continuous/progressive (''io sto mangiando'' "I'm eating", ''io starò mangiando'' "I shall be eating").

Indo-Aryan languages

Hindi

Hindi has three aspects, habitual aspect, perfective aspect and the progressive aspect. Each of these three aspects are formed from their participles. The aspects of Hindi when conjugated into their personal forms can be put into five grammatical moods: indicative, presumptive, subjunctive, contrafactual, and imperative. In Hindi, the aspect marker is overtly separated from the tense/mood marker. Periphrastic Hindi verb forms consist of two elements. The first of these two elements is the aspect marker. The second element (the copula) is the common tense/mood marker.

There are a couple of verbs which can be used as the copula to the aspectual participles: होना (honā) o be, happen रहना (rêhnā) o stay, remain आना (ānā) o come and जाना (jānā) o go Each of these copulas provide a unique nuance to the aspect. The default (unmarked) copula is होना (honā) o be These copulas can themselves be conjugated into an aspectual participle and used with another copula, hence forming subaspects. (Seeː Hindi verbs)

Finnic languages

Finnish and Estonian, among others, have a grammatical aspect contrast of telicity between telic and atelic. Telic sentences signal that the intended goal of an action is achieved. Atelic sentences do not signal whether any such goal has been achieved. The aspect is indicated by the case of the object: accusative is telic and partitive is atelic. For example, the (implicit) purpose of shooting is to kill, such that:
* ''Ammuin karhun'' -- "I shot the bear (succeeded; it is done)" i.e., "I shot the bear dead".
* ''Ammuin karhua'' -- "I shot at the bear" i.e. the bear may have survived.
In rare cases corresponding telic and atelic forms can be unrelated by meaning.

Derivational suffixes exist for various aspects. Examples:
*''-ahta-'' ("once"), as in ''huudahtaa'' ("to yell once") (used for emotive verbs like "laugh", "smile", "growl", "bark"; is not used for verbs like "shoot", "say", "drink")
*''-ele-'' "repeatedly" as in ''ammuskella'' "to go shooting around"

There are derivational suffixes for verbs, which carry frequentative, momentane, causative, and inchoative aspect meanings. Also, pairs of verbs differing only in transitivity exist.

Austronesian languages

Reo Rapa

The Rapa language (Reo Rapa) is a mixed language that grew out of Tahitian and Old Rapa among monolingual inhabitants of Rapa Iti. Old Rapa words are still used for grammar and sentence structure, but most common words were replaced by Tahitian words. Rapa is similar to English as they both have specific tense words such as ''did'' or ''do''.

*Past negative: ''ki’ere'' /kiʔere/

*Non-past negative (Regular negative) ''kāre'' /kaːre/

Hawaiian

The Hawaiian language conveys aspect as follows:

*The unmarked verb, frequently used, can indicate habitual aspect or perfective aspect in the past.
*''ke'' + verb + ''nei'' is frequently used and conveys the progressive aspect in the present.
*''e'' + verb + ''ana'' conveys the progressive aspect in any tense.
*''ua'' + verb conveys the perfective aspect but is frequently omitted.

Wuvulu

Wuvulu language is a minority language in Pacific. The Wuvulu verbal aspect is hard to organize because of its number of morpheme combinations and the interaction of semantics between morphemes. Perfective, imperfective negation, simultaneous and habitual are four aspects markers in Wuvulu language.

* Perfective: The perfective marker ''-li'' indicates the action is done before other action.

* Imperfect negation: The marker ''ta-'' indicates the action has not done and also doesn't show anything about the action will be done in the future.

* Simultaneous: The marker ''fi'' indicates the two actions are done at the same time or one action occurs while other action is in progress.

* Habitual: The marker fane- can indicate a habitual activity, which means "keep doing something" in English. Example:

Tokelauan

There are three types of aspects one must consider when analyzing the Tokelauan language: inherent aspect, situation aspect, and viewpoint aspect.

The inherent aspect describes the purpose of a verb and what separates verbs from one another. According to Vendler, inherent aspect can be categorized into four different types: activities, achievements, accomplishments, and states. Simple activities include verbs such as pull, jump, and punch. Some achievements are continue and win. Drive-a-car is an accomplishment while hate is an example of a state. Another way to recognize a state inherent aspect is to note whether or not it changes. For example, if someone were to hate vegetables because they are allergic, this state of hate is unchanging and thus, a state inherent aspect. On the other hand, an achievement, unlike a state, only lasts for a short amount of time. Achievement is the highpoint of an action.

Another type of aspect is situation aspect. Situation aspect is described to be what one is experiencing in his or her life through that circumstance. Therefore, it is his or her understanding of the situation. Situation aspect are abstract terms that are not physically tangible. They are also used based upon one's point of view. For example, a professor may say that a student who comes a minute before each class starts is a punctual student. Based upon the professor's judgment of what punctuality is, he or she may make that assumption of the situation with the student. Situation aspect is firstly divided into states and occurrences, then later subdivided under occurrences into processes and events, and lastly, under events, there are accomplishments and achievements.

The third type of aspect is viewpoint aspect. Viewpoint aspect can be likened to situation aspect such that they both take into consideration one's inferences. However, viewpoint aspect diverges from situation aspect because it is where one decides to view or see such event. A perfect example is the glass metaphor: Is the glass half full or is it half empty. The choice of being half full represents an optimistic viewpoint while the choice of being half empty represents a pessimistic viewpoint. Not only does viewpoint aspect separate into negative and positive, but rather different point of views. Having two people describe a painting can bring about two different viewpoints. One may describe a situation aspect as a perfect or imperfect. A perfect situation aspect entails an event with no reference to time, while an imperfect situation aspect makes a reference to time with the observation.

Torau

Aspect in Torau is marked with post-verbal particles or clitics. While the system for marking the imperfective aspect is complex and highly developed, it is unclear if Torau marks the perfective and neutral viewpoints. The imperfective clitics index one of the core arguments, usually the nominative subject, and follow the rightmost element in a syntactic structure larger than the word. The two distinct forms for marking the imperfective aspect are ''(i)sa-'' and ''e-''. While more work needs to be done on this language, the preliminary hypothesis is that ''(i)sa-'' encodes the stative imperfective and ''e-'' encodes the active imperfective. It is also important to note that reduplication always cooccurs with ''e-'', but it usually does not with ''(i)sa-.'' This example below shows these two imperfective aspect markers giving different meanings to similar sentences.

In Torau, the suffix -''to'', which must attach to a preverbal particle, may indicate similar meaning to the perfective aspect. In realis clauses, this suffix conveys an event that is entirely in the past and no longer occurring. When ''-to'' is used in irrealis clauses, the speaker conveys that the event will definitely occur (Palmer, 2007). Although this suffix is not explicitly stated as a perfective viewpoint marker, the meaning that it contributes is very similar to the perfective viewpoint.

Malay/Indonesian

Like many Austronesian languages, the verbs of the Malay language follow a system of affixes to express changes in meaning. To express the aspects, Malay uses a number of auxiliary verbs:

:*''sudah'': perfective, 'saya sudah makan' = 'I have lreadyeaten'
:*''baru'': near perfective, 'saya baru makan' = 'I have just eaten'
:*''belum'': imperfective, 'saya belum makan' = 'I have not eaten'
:*''sedang'': progressive not implicating an end
:*''masih'': progressive implicating an end
:*''pernah'': semelfactive

Philippine languages

Like many Austronesian languages, the verbs of the Philippine languages follow a complex system of affixes to express subtle changes in meaning. However, the verbs in this family of languages are conjugated to express the aspects and not the tenses. Though many of the Philippine languages do not have a fully codified grammar, most of them follow the verb aspects that are demonstrated by Filipino or Tagalog.

Creole languages

Creole languages typically use the unmarked verb for timeless habitual aspect, or for stative aspect, or for perfective aspect in the past. Invariant pre-verbal markers are often used. Non-stative verbs typically can optionally be marked for the progressive, habitual, completive, or irrealis aspect. The progressive in English-based Atlantic Creole

HOME


Content is Copyleft
Website design, code, and AI is Copyrighted (c) 2014-2017 by Stephen Payne


Consider donating to Wikimedia



As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases