Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:20:38.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The epistemic import of aspectual constructions: the case of performatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

ASTRID DE WIT ,
FRANK BRISARD  and
MICHAEL MEEUWIS
ASTRID DE WIT*
Affiliation:
Université Libre de Bruxelles
FRANK BRISARD*
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
MICHAEL MEEUWIS*
Affiliation:
Ghent University
*
†Address for correspondence: astrid.dwt@gmail.com; frank.brisard@uantwerpen.be; michael.meeuwis@ugent.be.
†Address for correspondence: astrid.dwt@gmail.com; frank.brisard@uantwerpen.be; michael.meeuwis@ugent.be.
†Address for correspondence: astrid.dwt@gmail.com; frank.brisard@uantwerpen.be; michael.meeuwis@ugent.be.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this study we chart the aspectual characteristics of performative utterances in a cross-linguistic sample of sixteen languages on the basis of native-speaker elicitations. We conclude that there is not one single aspectual type (e.g., perfectives) that is systematically reserved for performative contexts. Instead, the aspectual form of performative utterances in a given language is epistemically motivated, in the sense that the language will turn to that aspectual construction which it generally selects to refer to situations that are fully and instantly identifiable as an instance of a given situation type at the time of speaking. We use the method of Multidimensional Scaling to demonstrate this: whatever the exact value of a given aspectual marker, if it is used to mark performatives, then it also commonly features in the expression of states and habits, which have the subinterval property (they can be fully verified based on a random segment), demonstrations, and other special contexts featuring more or less predictable and therefore instantly identifiable events. On the other hand, our study shows that performative contexts do not normally feature progressive aspect, which is dedicated to the expression of events that are not fully and instantly identifiable.

Keywords

aspectperformativityepistemic modalityfull and instant identifiabilityMultidimensional Scaling
Type
Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 234 - 265
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

We wish to thank three anonymous reviewers for their detailed comments on a previous version of this paper. This work was supported by the National Fund for Scientific Research – FNRS (grant number 1.B099.15F; first author) and the National Fund for Scientific Research – FWO (grant number K8.005.16N; third author). Both institutions are hereby gratefully acknowledged.

References

references

Anthonissen, L., De Wit, A., & Mortelmans, T. (2016). Aspect meets modality: a semantic analysis of the German am-progressive. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 28(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1979). Philosophical papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, J., & Plungian, V. (1998), Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, 2, 79–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, K. (1975). Performatives are statements too. Philosophical Studies, 28, 229–236.Google Scholar
Bach, K., & Harnish, R. M. (1992). How performatives really work: a reply to Searle. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, 93–110.Google Scholar
Barentsen, A. A. (1985). ‘Tijd’, ‘aspect’ en de conjunctie poka. Over het gebruik van enkele vormen in het Moderne Russisch. Unpublished Phd thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Brisard, F., & Meeuwis, M. (2009). Present and perfect in Bantu: the case of Lingála. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 30(1), 21–43.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, S., & Timberlake, A. (1985). Tense, Aspect and Mood. In Shopen, T. (Ed.), Grammatical categories and the lexicon, volume 3: language typology and syntactic description (pp. 202–258). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, C., & Lauer, S. (2011). Performative verbs and performative acts. In Reich, I., Horch, E., & Pauly, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung 15 (pp. 149–164). Saarbrücken: Universaar—Saarland University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2012). Verbs: aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Poole, K. (2008). Inferring universals from grammatical variation: multidimensional scaling for typological analysis. Theoretical Linguistics, 34, 1–37.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. (1985). Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. (2000). The grammar of future time reference in European languages. Dahl, In Ö. (Ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe (pp. 309–328). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008-). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present. Available online at <http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.>>Google Scholar
De Wit, A. (2017), The present perfective paradox across languages (Oxford Studies of Time in Language and Thought). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Wit, A., & Brisard, F. (2014a). A Cognitive Grammar account of the semantics of the English present progressive. Journal of Linguistics, 50(1), 49–90.Google Scholar
De Wit, A., & Brisard, F. (2014b). Zero verb marking in Sranan. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 29(1), 1–48.Google Scholar
De Wit, A., & Michaelis, L. A. (ms.), Progressive performatives in English.Google Scholar
De Wit, A., Patard, A., & Brisard, F. (2013). A contrastive analysis of the present progressive in French and English. Studies in Language, 37(4), 846–879.Google Scholar
Dickey, S. M. (2000). Parameters of Slavic aspect: a cognitive approach. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Dickey, S. M. (2015). The aspectual development of performatives in Slavic. Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie, 71(2), 249–304.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Forsyth, J. (1970). A grammar of aspect: usage and meaning in the Russian verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Galton, H. (1976). The main functions of the Slavic verbal aspect. Skopje: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J., & Woisetschlaeger, E. F. (1982). The logic of the English progressive. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 79–89.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1980), The iconicity of grammar: isomorphism and motivation. Language, 56, 515–540.Google Scholar
Harnish, R. M. (2007). Performative utterances: seven puzzles. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 3, 3–21.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1997). Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hewson, J., & Bubenik, V. (1997). Tense and aspect in Indo-European languages: theory, typology, diachrony. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewson, J. (2012). Tense. In Binnick, R. I. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect (pp. 507–535). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Israeli, A. (2001). The choice of aspect in Russian verbs of communication: pragmatic contract. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 9(1), 49–98.Google Scholar
Jóhannsdóttir, K. M. (2011). Aspects of the progressive in English and Icelandic. Unpublsihed PhD thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Khalil, A., & McCarus, E. (1999). Arabic performative verbs. Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik, 36, 7–20.Google Scholar
Kochańska, A. (2002). A Cognitive Grammar analysis of Polish nonpast perfectives and imperfectives: how virtual events differ from actual ones. In Brisard, F. (Ed.), Grounding: the epistemic footing of deixis and reference (pp. 349–390). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, volume 1: theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2001). The English present tense. English Language and Linguistics, 5, 251–273.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2011). The English present. In Patard, A. & Brisard, F. (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to tense, aspect and epistemic modality (pp. 45–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (2004). Meaning and the English verb, 3rd ed. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meeuwis, M. (2013). Lingala. In Michaelis, S. M., Maurer, P., Haspelmath, M., & Huber, M. (Eds.), Contact languages based on languages from Africa, Asia, Australia, and the Americas (pp. 25–33). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nurse, D. (2008). Tense and aspect in Bantu. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Petré, P. (2017). The extravagant and the progressive: an experimental corpus study on the grammaticalization history of [BE Ving]. English Language and Linguistics, 21(2), 227–250.Google Scholar
Procházka, S., & Bsees, U. (2011). Performatives in Arabic administrative speech. Imperium and Officium Working Papers. Online: <https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Performatives+in+Arabic+administrative+speech&btnG=>..>Google Scholar
Rosaldo, M. Z. (1982). The things we wo with words: Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy. Language in Society, 11, 203–237.Google Scholar
Samie, T. de (2009). Etude linguistique du constituant verbal en kirundi: Suivi de dictionnaire des lexèmes verbo-nominaux. Paris: L’Harmatttan.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of speech acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1989). How performatives work. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 535–558.Google Scholar
Smith, C. S. (1997). The parameter of aspect, 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E. (2000). Blended spaces and performativity. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 305–333.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vanden Wyngaerd, G. (2005). Simple tense. In Den Dikken, M. & Tortora, C. (Eds.), The function of function words and functional categories (pp. 187–215). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. (1995). The conceptual basis of performativity. In Shibatani, M., & Thompson, S. (Eds.), Essays in semantics and pragmatics: essays in honor of Charles J. Fillmore (pp. 299–321). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wälchli, B., & Cysouw, M. (2012). Lexical typology through similarity semantics: towards a semantic map of motion verbs. Linguistics, 50(3), 671–710.Google Scholar
Wiemer, B. (2014). Upotreblenie soveršennogo vida v performativnom nastojaščem. In Dmitrenko, S. Ju. & Zaika, N. M. (Eds), Studia octogenario Victori Khrakovskij Samuelis filio dedicata (Acta linguistica Petropolitana 10(3)) (pp. 91–113). St Petersburg: Nauka.Google Scholar
Williams, C. (2002). Non-progressive and progressive aspect in English. Fasano: Schena editore.Google Scholar