1887
Volume 10, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper offers a fresh perspective on (restrictions on) aspectual coercion, thereby focusing on the essentially epistemic import of aspectual constructions. The case study that I will discuss is the unexpected use of the simple tenses for ongoing event reports in sentences involving full-verb inversion. I will argue that this attestation of the simple present/past in inverted sentences can be analyzed as a kind of aspectual mismatch between the higher-order construction and the embedded tenses. Yet at a more basic, epistemic level of analysis, there is no mismatch: the full-verb inversion construction and the embedded tenses are similar in the sense that both report events that are conceived of as fully and instantly identifiable.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00019.wit
2019-01-21
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Altshuler, D.
    (2016) Events, states and times: An essay on narrative discourse in English. De Gruyter Open. 10.1515/9783110485912
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110485912 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bary, C.
    (2009) Aspect in Ancient Greek: A semantic analysis of the aorist and the imperfective. Phd Dissertation, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.
  3. Birner, B. J.
    (1994) Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion. Language, 70, 233–59. 10.2307/415828
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415828 [Google Scholar]
  4. (1995) Pragmatic constraints on the verb in English inversion. Lingua, 97, 233–256. 10.1016/0024‑3841(95)00026‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(95)00026-7 [Google Scholar]
  5. Birner, B. J., & Ward, G.
    (1992) On the interpretation of VP inversion in American English. Journal of Linguistics, 28, 1–12. 10.1017/S0022226700014973
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700014973 [Google Scholar]
  6. (1998) Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.40
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.40 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bolinger, D.
    (1977) Meaning and form. New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brisard, F.
    (2002) The English present. InF. Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference (pp.251–297). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110899801.251
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110899801.251 [Google Scholar]
  9. Calver, E.
    (1946) The uses of the present tense forms in English. Language, 22(4), 317–325. 10.2307/409921
    https://doi.org/10.2307/409921 [Google Scholar]
  10. Celle, A., & Smith, N.
    (2010) Beyond aspect: Will be -ing and shall be -ing. English Language and Linguistics, 14, 239–269. 10.1017/S1360674310000079
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674310000079 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen, R.
    (2003) English inversion. A ground-before-figure construction. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110895100
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895100 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cooper, R.
    (1986) Tense and discourse location in Situation Semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9, 17–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Croft, W.
    (2007) Construction grammar. InGeeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.463–508). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Croft, W., & Cruse, A. D.
    (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  15. De Smet, H., & Heyvaert, L.
    (2011) The meaning of the English present participle. English Language and Linguistics, 15, 473–498. 10.1017/S136067431100013X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S136067431100013X [Google Scholar]
  16. de Swart, H.
    (1998) Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 347–385. 10.1023/A:1005916004600
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005916004600 [Google Scholar]
  17. De Wit, A.
    (2016) The relation between aspect and inversion in English. English Language and Linguistics, 20(1), 107–128. 10.1017/S1360674315000301
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674315000301 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2017) The present perfective paradox across languages. Oxford studies of time in language and thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. De Wit, A., & Brisard, F.
    (2014) A Cognitive Grammar account of the semantics of the English present progressive. Journal of Linguistics, 50, 49–90. 10.1017/S0022226713000169
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226713000169 [Google Scholar]
  20. De Wit, A., Brisard, F., & Meeuwis, M.
    (2018) The epistemic import of aspectual constructions: The case of performatives. Language and Cognition. 10(2), 234–265. 10.1017/langcog.2017.26
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2017.26 [Google Scholar]
  21. De Wit, A., Petré, P. & Brisard, F.
    (ms.). Standing out with the progressive.
  22. Dorgeloh, H.
    (1997) Inversion in Modern English: Form and function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.6 [Google Scholar]
  23. Drubig, H.-B.
    (1988) On the discourse function of subject-verb inversion. InJ. Klegraf & D. Nehls (Eds.), Essays on the English language and applied linguistics on the occasion of Gerhard Nickel’s 60th birthday (pp.83–95). Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Goldsmith, J., & Woisetschlaeger, E. F.
    (1982) The logic of the English progressive. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 79–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Güldemann, T.
    (2003) Present progressive vis-à-vis predication focus in Bantu: A verbal category between semantics and pragmatics. Studies in Language, 27, 323–360. 10.1075/sl.27.2.05gul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.27.2.05gul [Google Scholar]
  27. Kay, P., & Michaelis, L. A.
    (ms.), Partial inversion in English.
  28. Kreyer, R.
    (2006) Inversion in modern written English: Syntactic complexity, information status and the creative writer. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (1993) Nouns and verbs. Language, 63, 53–94. 10.2307/415384
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415384 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2001) The English present tense. English language and linguistics, 5, 251–273. 10.1017/S1360674301000235
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674301000235 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2011) The English present. InA. Patard & F. Brisard (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to tense, aspect and epistemic modality (pp.45–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.29.06lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.29.06lan [Google Scholar]
  35. Lauwers, P., & Willems, D.
    (2011) Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics, 49, 1219–1235. 10.1515/ling.2011.034
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.034 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ljung, M.
    (1980) Reflections on the English progressive. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Los, B., & Starren, M.
    (2012) A typological switch in early Modern English – and the beginning of one in Dutch?Leuvense Bijdragen, 98, 98–126.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Michaelis, L. A.
    (2004) Type shifting in Construction Grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive linguistics, 15, 1–67. 10.1515/cogl.2004.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.001 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2011) Stative by construction. Linguistics, 49, 1359–1399. 10.1515/ling.2011.038
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.038 [Google Scholar]
  40. Partee, B., & Borschev, V.
    (2007) Existential sentences, BE and the genitive of negation in Russian. InK. von Heusinger & I. Comorovski (Eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax (pp.147–190). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Petré, P.
    (2017) The extravagant progressive. An experimental corpus study on the grammaticalization history of [BE Ving]. English Language and Linguistics, 21, 227–250. 10.1017/S1360674317000107
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674317000107 [Google Scholar]
  42. Prado-Alonso, C.
    (2011) Full-verb inversion in written and spoken English. Bern: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑0351‑0252‑9
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0252-9 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2016) A constructional analysis of obligatory XVS syntactic structures. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 51, 51–82. 10.1515/stap‑2016‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/stap-2016-0002 [Google Scholar]
  44. Pustejovsky, J., & Bouillon, P.
    (1995) Aspectual coercion and logical polysemy. Journal of Semantics, 12, 133–162. 10.1093/jos/12.2.133
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/12.2.133 [Google Scholar]
  45. Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B.
    (1998) Building verb meanings. InM. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp.97–134). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Ziegeler, D.
    (2007) A word of caution on coercion. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 990–1028. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.014 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00019.wit
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): coercion , epistemic schemas , full-verb inversion , progressive aspect and simple tenses
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error