Time and Space: The Language Clinch
Abstract
48
Full text
Time and Space: The Language Clinch1 Zdeněk Starý ABSTRACT: The fact that languages use the same means to express temporal as well as spatial distinctions might be asymptom of adeeper interconnectedness of Time and Space in language. The article focuses on aspect as acategory that molds time into the language. Communicative acts with an imperfective verb can signal imperfectivity as well as perfectivity of the communication, and vice versa: communicative acts with aperfective verb can be interpreted not only perfectively, but imperfectively as well. Morphological aspect (i.e. aspect given by the morphological make-up of the verb) is thus to be distinguished from aspect as an aspectual construal of the communication (sentence). Factors which contribute to the constitution of the aspectual construal of the communication are located not only within the verb itself (its morphological make-up), but also outside of the verb, or even beyond the realm of language means. On the basis of the study of aspectual construals of communication, the notion of perfectivity is classified in regard to event/state flow into five types. The underlying principle of this classification is asymmetry (point(s) of asymmetry) instaured into the event/state flow. While in cases where Time and Space share means of expression, their relationship is metaphorical (one input domain is talked about in terms of the other), the Time–Space link in perfectives does not facilitate the communication of temporal meanings in terms of spatial ones. In this sense its “metaphoricity” is “deponent”. Perfectivity as atemporal category emerges directly from the asymmetry as aspatial concept: the temporal cogitandum is determined by the spatial cogitatum. KEYWORDS: aspect, aspect in Czech, perfectivity, aspectual construal of communication, time–space relationship in language, metaphor 1. INITIAL OBSERVATIONS It is quite common and quite commonly recognized that the same language means are used to express temporal as well as spatial distinctions, as is obvious from the following examples. (1) přes plot ‘over (a/the) fence’— přes hodinu ‘over an hour’ (2) před domem ‘in front of (a/the) house’— před polednem / hodinou / časem ‘before noon / an hour / (some) time’ (3) do domu ‘into (a/the) house’— do dvou dnů / do hodiny ‘in two days / an hour’ 1 Iwould like to thank Ilona Starý Kořánová for reading the first draft of this paper and commenting on it. Any mistakes, of course, are mine. Iwould like to thank both reviewers. Their comments prompted some amendments and contributed to the explanatory clarity of the text. OPEN ACCESS
ZDENěK STArý 49 Example (1) uses the same preposition to express the surpassing of aspatial as well as temporal extension. Identical prepositions are used to express location in space as well as “location” in time (2). Similarly, in example (3), the preposition do ‘into’ signals motion into alocation (spatial meaning) as well as event/motion within atemporal interval, i.e. metonymically (totum pro parte) motion toward the end of the temporal interval. It is not only prepositions that have the capacity to signal both spatial and temporal meanings. (4) donést balík domů ‘to bring the package home’— dočkat se konce / dne / oběda ‘to see the end / the day / look forward to / get / have made it to lunch’2 (5) dlouhá/krátká cesta ‘long/short way’— dlouhá/krátká doba ‘long/short time’ (6) hrnec se naplnil ‘the pot (got) filled up’— čas se naplnil ‘the time is up’. In the example (4), it is the prefix dowhich expresses the conclusive phase of the temporal (dočkat se konce / dne / oběda) as well as spatial (donést balík domů) properties of an event. In (5), it is the same attributes (adjectives) that describe the expressions’ temporal as well as spatial extension. Finally, in (6), the same verb is used to denote the fulfillment of a spatial as well as temporal quantity. Of course, this phenomenon is not limited to Czech. Examples (1)–(6) have their counterparts for instance in English. (7) over the fence— over an hour (8) in the house— in two days (9) towards the home— towards the evening (10) long/short trip— long/short time (11) the pot has filled up— the time has filled up (12) Peter has come— the time has come In example (7), the same preposition is used to signal the crossing of aspatial or temporal limit. The preposition in (8) expresses either spatial or temporal “location” within aspatial (house) or temporal (days) range. In example (9), the preposition towards implies amotion towards aspatial or temporal point. Similarly to example (5), the same attributes (long/short) are used to quantify aspatial as well as temporal extension in the English example (10). Also, examples (11), (12) and (6) are analogical in regard to expressing spatial vs. temporal meanings, i.e. the same verbs are used in regard to temporal as well as spatial processes. The use of the same language means to express the spatial as well as temporal meaning distinctions illustrated above can be thought of as metaphorical in its nature. According to recent metaphor theories, metaphor exhibits the following properties: 2 The verb čekat, from which the verb dočkat is derived, means to wait. With the prefixation by do- (dočkat) afeature of ‘looking forward” emerges plus the meaning that the expectation we have been looking forward to is met (i.e. we have reached the end / the day / we have made it to the lunch). OPEN ACCESS
50 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY i. Metaphor is aphenomenon relating two domains of human experience to each other. Sometimes they are called source and target domains (Conceptual Metaphor Theory, e.g. Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p.5; Lakoff, 1993, p.202f; Grady, 2007, p.190f.), sometimes inputs 1 and 2 (Mental spaces / Blending Theory, Fauconnier & Turner, 2006, p.308ff.), and the like. ii. Metaphor is not alanguage (use) phenomenon only. It is away ahuman conceptualizes the world. iii. Language is then the realm in which the (conceptualization) operation of metaphor can be ascertained, observed, and thus studied, since to speak metaphorically means to talk in terms of one domain (source domain) about the other (target domain). In all of the examples (1)–(12), it is Space and Time that play the role of the domains (inputs). Spatial language means are used to talk about time in them and all of them exhibit all three metaphor properties i–iii. In other words, the language means used to refer to spatial as well as temporal meanings listed in the examples are polysemous and metaphor is the mechanism that constitutes the polysemy, i.e. connects the polysemous items/means. These language means— prepositions, prefixes, attributes, verbal lexemes and their forms in the examples above— are thus used in temporal as well as spatial domains to express semantic distinctions of each of the domains. This fact suggests that Time and Space might be mutually intimately interwoven in language. The question is, to what extent and to what degree?3 We will proceed in the following four major steps: — to ascertain aspect as atemporal category and present it as averbal category of its kind (see section 2: Aspect as atemporal category); — focusing on the imperfective–perfective opposition, to draw attention to (examples of) factors which contribute to the aspectual construal of the communication, some of them being of non-verbal lingual nature, some of them extending beyond the realm of the traditional language means (see section 2.2: Aspectual construal and Morphological aspect); — since it is perfectives which exhibit internal temporal structuration, to tackle perfectives/perfectivity and its types (see section 3: Perfectivity and its types), first in terms of events and then to make ageneralization step to cover the use of more morphological perfectives (see section 4: Perfectivity as Instauration of Point(s) of Asymmetry); 3 For more on the place of this observation in linguistics history and present, see Haspelmath (1997, pp.1–22). Despite the high degree of universality of this observation (ibid., p.3), there seem to exist languages where spatial terms are not used to express temporal distinctions. Comp. Whorf (1956, p.146), Haspelmath (1997, p.2), Sinha et al. (2011). For the case of Czech, see for instance Saicová Římalová in this issue. For more on Czech prepositions and the relationship between their temporal and spatial meaning, see Konečná (1974). OPEN ACCESS
ZDENěK STArý 51 — finally, to conclude with differences between the rather surface-level metaphorical interconnection of Time and Space in expressing temporal and spatial meanings with shared language means, and the deep underlying connection of Time and Space in perfectives/perfectivity, which does not surface as Time–Space shared language means (see section 5: Conclusion). 2. ASPECT AS ATEMPORAL CATEGORY Setting out to tackle the Time–Space relationship in language, we start with Time in Czech. How does Czech express temporal distinctions? By means of the verbal tense category (jdu na pivo ‘Igo for abeer’— šel jsem na pivo ‘Iwent / have gone for abeer’), by (for instance adverbial) complements (přišel pozdě ‘he was late’), and by means of the category of aspect: Když četl, smál se. ‘While he was reading, he laughed.’— both events took place simultaneously vs. Když to přečetl/dočetl, smál se. ‘After he had read it, he laughed.’— one event took place before the other. Hereafter, we will focus on aspect, namely on the distinction perfective–imperfective, leaving other aspectual values aside. The temporal nature of the aspect category clearly surfaces in Comrie’s (1997, p.3) widely used definition of aspect: “[aspect is a] way of viewing the internal temporal constituency of asituation”. 2.1 ASPEcT— A“DIFFErENT” VErbAL cATEGOrY (SUbJEcTIVITY OF ASPEcT) Some linguists dealing with (Czech) aspect draw attention to what could be called the subjectivity of aspect. Antonín Dostál: “Slovesný vid je schopnost slovesa vyjádřit postoj mluvčího ke skutečné události, kději (nebo kpředstavě oné události), chápané jako celek nebo opačně [Verbal aspect is the capacity of the verb to express the speaker’s attitude to areal event, process or action (or the speaker’s perception of it), which is grasped as awhole or the opposite]” (Dostál, 1954, p.15f). Bohumil Mathesius: “[Vid je způsob], kterým mluvčí pojímá vyjadřovaný děj vzhledem kjeho průběhu (…) [Aspect is away in which the speaker perceives an event in regard to its course (…)]” (Mathesius, 1961, p.68). Bernard Comrie: “(…) aspect consists in the manner of temporal rendering/layout of the situation” (Comrie, 1976, p.3). According to these quotes, aspect consists in the way the speaker understands, perceives or grasps the communicated event or situation. It is the speaker who decides and selects the aspect category value (to be) used in the particular communication. It thus depends on the speaker’s subjective understanding of the event, and in this sense, the category of aspect is subjective. OPEN ACCESS
52 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY Some other verbal categories do not exhibit this quality. For instance, in the case of the category of person, the speaker does not have comparable freedom to select the value of the category. While in the case of aspect the speaker can decide, speaking about the same real event/situation and having the same interpretation/construal in mind, whether to use imperfective or perfective forms and say Mirek knihu četl. ‘Mirek read / was reading [imperfective] the book.’ or Mirek knihu přečetl. ‘Mirek has read [perfective] the book.’,4 the category of person does not permit analogical selection: 1st person is always the speaker, 2nd person always the addressee. The speaker cannot decide to speak about her/himself in 2nd person or use 1st person about the addressee (comp. with Starý Kořánová, 2019, p.8). 2.2 ASPEcTUAL cONSTrUAL AND mOrPHOLOGIcAL ASPEcT It is quite commonly claimed that aspect is averbal category, i.e. the verb is the exponent of aspectual distinctions, aspectual distinctions are expressed by the verb forms. Anticipating our conclusion, this is not the case. To be able to demonstrate that, let us distinguish, together with Starý Kořánová (2019, pp.18, 25, 64), between aspect as acategory determined by the morphological make-up of the verb from aspect as an aspectual construal of the communication (komunikát). They may differ, as is quite often the case in the examples cited in this paper.5 In other words, “in communication, it is not so much whether the verb IS (morphologically) perfective or imperfective, but rather whether it is USED perfectively or imperfectively” (Starý, 2017, p.119; comp. also with Starý Kořánová, 2015, 2019, namely pp. iv, 1, 58, 83, 156, 191, 195f). Consequently, we have to be aware of the morphological makeup of the verb on the one hand, but have to focus on the “physiology” of communication construal emergence on the other, and pose questions concerning what are / might be the factors involved in this process, whether they would be, in the traditional sense, of lingual or non-lingual nature.6 The commonly voiced reference to context here is basically only an acknowledgment that we do not know what the “physiology” might be, that there is arealm of factors we / the respective linguists do not have an articulate picture of or even any idea about. 4 This is not to say that in other instances, the aspectual morphological make-up of the verb četl/přečetl could not be used to express an aspectual distinction, i.e. the “free” choice between četl and přečetl would not be without communicative consequences. Tu knihu jsem nejen četl, ale icelou přečetl. ‘Inot only (have) read the book, but Ihave finished it.’ would be, for instance, such acase. Compare also with footnote 7. 5 For the notion of construal in borderline and more general contexts, see for instance Croft & Cruse (2004, chapter 3); Croft (2007, p.349f, 2012, pp.13ff, 92ff). 6 The term lingual is used here intentionally to express the meaning of “to be related to language” and to avoid confusion linked with possible alternative terminology linguistic or verbal. The adjective verbal brings with it aconfusing homonymy: verbal as related to verb as part of speech vs. verbal as expressed by words (we have been using the term verbal in the first sense in this article). The adjective linguistic is also homonymous: it relates either to language or to linguistics. OPEN ACCESS
ZDENěK STArý 53 (13) Tu knihu jsem četl. ‘Ihave read / was reading / read the book.’ Morphologically, the verb in example (13) is imperfective; nevertheless, the aspectual construal of the sentence might be both perfective and imperfective. It is quite common that acommunication including amorphological imperfective is interpreted perfectively, i.e. amorphologically imperfective predicate corresponds to aperfective construal of the communication— example (13) is no peripheral exception. (14) Ten film jsem (už) viděl. ‘Ihave seen / was watching / saw [imperfective] the movie (already).’ (15) Vtom bazénu jsem se (už) koupal. ‘Ihave swum / was swimming / swam [imperfective] in the pool (already).’ (16) Už jsem vBaltu plaval. ‘Ihave swum / was swimming / swam [imperfective] in Baltic Sea already.’ (17) Neklepejte, sestra vychází. ‘Do not knock (on the door), the nurse is coming out / comes out [imperfective].’ Examples (14)–(16) are the same as example (13):7 all of them include amorphologically imperfective verb, but can be interpreted perfectively (the perfective construal seems to be foregrounded by the adverb už ‘already’: Ihave had the experience of watching the film, of swimming in the pool, of swimming in the Baltic Sea).8 The example (17), asign on the door of adoctor’s office in aPrague hospital, is abit more complicated since its construal is potentially imperfective, perfective and/or iterative. The verb vychází as alexeme ‘to leave, walk out of (aroom/space)’ is aspectually homonymous— it is imperfective or iterative. This ambiguity is resolved by the insertion of the adverb pravidelně ‘regularly’ in arecent update of the sign: in (18), the iterative interpretation of vychází is foregrounded. 7 Examples (13)–(16) expand the set of examples sometimes given to illustrate that imperfective as the unmarked member of the privative perfective–imperfective opposition can be used in acommunicative act which conveys perfective meaning. Comp. for instance with Karlík, Nekula & Rusínová (1995, p.318) specifically for Czech, or Jakobson (1932, pp.74, 76, 1971, pp.3, 6, 1984, pp.1, 3f) on the general level. 8 Imperfective construals of examples (15) and (16) are: Vtom bazénu jsem se už koupal, když přišel. ‘Iwas swimming in the pool when he came.’, VBaltu jsem už plaval, když loď kotvila. ‘Iwas swimming in the Baltic Sea when the boat dropped its anchor.’, respectively. In (14) the situation is more complex since Czechs do not vidí film, but dívají se na or sledují film, i.e. adifferent verb has to be used in an imperfective situation, similarly as in English, where different verbs are used as well: Ihave seen the movie. vs. Iwatched the movie. OPEN ACCESS
54 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY (18) Neklepejte, sestra pravidelně vychází. ‘Do not knock (on the door), the nurse comes out regularly.’ To use an imperfective in the perfective sense fits the theory of markedness as it was conceived by Trubetzkoy (1931, p.97, 1939, p.67) in phonology and by Jakobson (1932, p.74, 1984, p.1) in morphological correlations. But the opposite is also possible, i.e. acommunication (asentence) containing amorphologically perfective predicate can be understood imperfectively. Examples such as (19) and (20) illustrate this. (19) Udělá (stále) sto kliků. ‘He/she still does / is able to do 100 push-ups.’ (20) Stále se uživí. ‘He/she still/yet makes aliving / is able to make aliving.’ Morphological perfectives udělá ‘he/she will do [perfective] (it)’, uživí ‘he/she will be able to support / feed / provide living to [perfective] (him/her…)’, etc. express the agent’s ability to perform the activities referred to by the verb (“doing” and “making aliving” in the given examples). They do not express an event, activity, or process, but refer to astate. States, similarly as imperfectives, exhibit an unbounded temporal extension, and there is no point which would limit, divide or structure the temporal extension of the event referred to by the verb, as is common in the case of perfectives.9 Again, these instances are not exceptional cases. They represent awhole class of constructions which does not limit itself to the so-called capacitives, as might be erroneously inferred from examples (19) and (20) in which the verbs do fit the traditional definition of capacitives (see Starý Kořánová, 2019, namely chapters 4 and 5, which are based on extensive corpus data).10 9 States and imperfectives are not identical. States, as well as imperfectives, exhibit unbounded duration and as such, similarly to imperfectives, they last. States, on the other hand, are either valid or not (comp. with Starý Kořánová, 2019, p.30f). Duration implies the possibility to be structured. Duratives are compatible with phasal auxiliary verbs (začít plakat ‘to begin to cry’, začít běžet ‘to begin to run’) and phasal prefixes (rozplakat se ‘to begin to cry’, rozběhnout se ‘to begin to run’). The states described above do not exhibit this quality, despite the fact that their meaning implies durativity. In other words, unlike imperfectives, states exhibit limited ability to be temporally (i.e. as far as the time dimension is concerned) structured: for instance začal pracovat ‘he started to work’ vs. *začal unést pytel smoukou ‘he began to be able to carry [perfective] the flour bag’; but the periphrastic začal být schopen pytel smoukou unést is possible. For other aspects of the state vs. (actual) event / action / process relationship, see Starý Kořánová (2019, p.31). 10 The term capacitive was introduced by Poldauf in his discussion with Kopečný (Poldauf, 1964, p.50) and is usually used for verbs such as ujít, ujet, uběhnout, uplavat, uletět, urazit, unést, uvézt, utáhnout, uzvednout, uzdvihnout, udržet, uživit, ubránit, uchránit, uhlídat, udržet vtajnosti autajit (the list quoted from Veselý, 2014, p.55). Capacitives are thus perfective verbs derived with the prefix uwhich express the subject’s ability to fulfill the event/acOPEN ACCESS
ZDENěK STArý 55 Not only can a(morphologically) perfective predicate contribute to an imperfective interpretation of the particular communication and vice versa, but there are also instances in which aspect is irrelevant from the point of view of the communication and its construal— it simply does not matter. (21) Tato kniha uvedené / uváděné klišé nepopírá. ‘This book does not deny the cliché mentioned [perfective] / mentioned [imperfective].’ (22) (…) lidský život se— jak vidno— dá zredukovat na pár klíčových informací / lidský život se— jak vidno— dá redukovat na pár klíčových informací. ‘(…) human life— obviously— can be reduced [perfective] to afew key bits of information / human life— obviously— can be reduced [imperfective] to afew key bits of information.’ (23) (…) jak jsou tyto kategorie vymezeny / vymezovány vlingvistice (…) ‘(…) as these categories are defined [perfective] / defined [imperfective] in linguistics (…)’ In the examples (21)–(23), it does not matter whether the speaker uses the perfective or imperfective form of the respective verbs, the content of the communication remains the same. In this sense, the morphological aspect is irrelevant in these instances.11 Of course, the fact that perfectives might be understood imperfectively and vice versa has been noticed by scholars dealing with (Czech) aspect.12 For instance, examples such as (13) are commonly mentioned in Czech grammars (Petr et al., 1986, p.181; Karlík et al., 1995, p.318, and the like). But most of the time (nearly exclusively), they are examples where, in structuralist terminology, the non-marked imperfective member of the privative perfective–imperfective opposition is used instead of the marked one, i.e. instead of the perfective. Sentences like (19) and (20) are described from the point of view of aspect as special instances different from the regular ones: Kopečný thus speaks about these examples and verbs like ten se nadělá ‘he works very hard, or idiomatically, makes afuss over’, vejde se to tam ‘it fits in there’, vydrží ‘he tivity referred to by the verb to acertain degree, therefore they are (sometimes implicitly) complemented by the degree to which the event is fulfilled. For an innovative approach to capacitives, which casts some doubts on the way they have been conceived and treated so far, as well as for more details on the nature and history of the notion of capacitives, see Starý Kořánová (2019, p.63ff). 11 Comp. with Starý (2017a, p.114). The first two examples are from Reiner (2014). Básník / román oIvanu Blatném. Praha: Torst (p.11f). Examples before the slash are quotes from the novel. Examples following the slash are modifications by ZS. The last example has been taken from alinguistics presentation. 12 It is only the above-described irrelevance of aspect values in communication which has so far not been noticed, as far as Iknow. OPEN ACCESS
56 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY manages to, endures’, etc. as “neaktuální perfektiva” (non-current perfectives, i.e. perfectives which do not express any ongoing event / process / activity). Kopečný in his polemics with Seidl (Kopečný, 1948)13 refers to them as to “dokonavý prézens” [perfective present (tense)] (Seidl, 1939, pp.12, 16ff). Similarly, Poldauf (1964, p.50) (and many others after him, for instance Veselý, 2009, p.113) singles out verbs he calls kapacitiva [capacitives], including examples (19) and (20), among others (uplavat ‘(be able to) swim (adistance)’, uběhnout ‘(be able to) run (adistance)’, ujet ‘(be able to) go (adistance)’, uletět ‘(be able to) fly (adistance)’, ujít ‘(be able to) walk (adistance)’, uvézt ‘(of avehicle) be able to transport something’, utáhnout ‘(be able to) pull something (adistance)’, udržet ‘hold (aweight)’). All of these definitions (from the noetic point of view) cherry-pick instances that do not conform to the description or theory of aspect by these authors and aberrate from predictions of their theory. In this sense, delineation of such special groups of verbs demarks areas that are outside of the applied description/theory’s scope, areas where the respective theory does not operate in an expected way and does not provide an explanation for the observed phenomena. To take the “exceptions” listed above seriously, i.e. to abolish the usual bias in dealing with aspect, two steps are to be taken: 1. to internalize the necessity to distinguish between morphological aspect (i.e. aspect given by the morphological make-up of the verb) on the one hand and the aspectual construal of the communication (for instance, the sentence) on the other,14 and 2. to reflect that the aspectual value of the communication does not derive from the morphological make-up of the verb alone. The first step has been taken and addressed earlier in this paper. Let us now turn to the second step. 2.3 NON-VErbAL FAcTOrS IN THE VErbAL cATEGOrY OF ASPEcT The ambiguities of aspectual construals in examples (13)–(23) prompt aquest for the kinds of factors that might contribute to a(possibly unequivocal) aspectual interpretation of acommunicative act / sentence. The following are examples of factors which are not based on the aspectual morphological make-up of the verb, and, in this sense, are non-verbal15 in nature. This list merely contains some examples. As broad as it is, it does not aspire to be acomplete list. 13 Unlike Kopečný, Seidl focuses not on verb categories, but rather on the way verbs are used in communication, i.e. in our terms, on aspectual (temporal) construals of communications, part of which are morphologically perfective predicates. 14 The distinction between morphological aspect and aspectual construal of the communication (sentence) opens a quite broad new thematic territory of aspectual homonymy and polysemy. It is systematically tackled on Czech corpus data in Starý Kořánová (2020). 15 The use of the expression (non-)verbal is not to be confused here with its other meaning “expressed in words”. OPEN ACCESS
ZDENěK STArý 63 postavit se ‘to stand up [perfective]’— stát ‘to stand [imperfective]’ sednout si ‘to sit down [perfective]’— sedět ‘to sit [imperfective]’ zmlknout ‘to fall silent [perfective]’— mlčet ‘to be silent [imperfective]’ pochopit ‘to grasp [perfective]’— chápat ‘to understand [imperfective]’ (43) (stále) unese 100 kilo ‘he is still able to lift [perfective] 100 kg’22 (ještě) se osebe postará ‘he still sustains / is able to take care [perfective] of himself’ (pořád) se najde dost bláznů ‘enough nuts can be still found [perfective] around’ (44) posedět (si) ‘to sit [perfective] around for awhile’ poklábosit (si) ‘to chat [perfective] for awhile’ pobejt ‘to be [perfective] (together) for awhile’ Let us analyze these examples and comment on them from the point of view of the perfectivity properties a)— d) listed above. All examples (40)–(42) imply achange in the situation they communicate. But they differ in what has changed. In (40), it is the newly built house, broken vase and the fact that the book was read from cover to cover. In (41), the change consists in the suspension of the event/activity itself.23 Nothing else has changed in the communicated situation, but that the event has ceased (he stopped flapping his wings, stopped flying). The nature of the difference between (40) and (41) stands out namely in the example (35) above. While in (41) different construals are signaled by the use of different expressions (mával křídly— domával křídly, létal— dolétal), in (35) there is one expression with two different construals: the brothers reached granny’s house— the brothers ceased walking. In examples (42), the nature of the change is different again. It consists in the commencement of an “imperfective” event: after Ihave learned (the thing), Iknow it; after Ihave stood up on my knees, Istand on them; after Ihave risen up, Istand on my feet, etc. The change thus does not consist in the emergence of new entities as in (40), or of the suspension of the communicated event or activity (41), but in the commencement of anew event referred to by an imperfective. In contrast to (40)–(42), examples (43) and (44) do not imply any change. The examples in (43) can be interpreted as areference to astate, i.e. the subject’s ability (capacity) to perform the event referred to by the verb (unést 100 kilo ‘lift 100 kg’, postarat se osebe ‘take care of himself’), or the possibility of an event occurrence (pořád se najde dost bláznů ‘enough nuts can be still found around’). 22 Examples (43) are drawn from Starý Kořánová (2019), where there is more on these examples interpreted as states, namely in chapters 4 and 5. As mentioned already, these cases are not peripheral among Czech constructions, they are based on aquite common (productive) pattern (ibid.). 23 The suspension of the activity létat ‘to fly’ or mávat křídly ‘to flip the wings’ might also be interpreted as aloss of the ability to fly / flap the wings; the activity might be hampered by the facts that, for instance, the wings got hurt / broken off, etc. OPEN ACCESS
64 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY The examples in (44) are sometimes referred to as omezovací slovesa [curbing verbs]. They refer to an activity (sitting, chatting, and being (around together) / hanging out together in our examples) which is temporally curbed, i.e. it takes place in some kind of interval, but the interval is totally unspecified. We know it begins and ends, but its beginning or end are not determined, the construction does not imply any specific beginning or ending points in time. The existence of these points distinguishes curbing verbs from imperfectives, despite the fact that otherwise they exhibit some properties of imperfectives. For instance, their adverbial complementation is similar (e.g. dlouho jsme si popovídali24 ‘we chatted [perfective] for along time’— dlouho jsme si povídali ‘we chatted [imperfective] for along time’— *dlouho jsme postavili dům ‘we have completed/built [perfective] the house for along time’— dlouho jsme stavěli dům ‘we built [imperfective] the house for along time’).25 Also, Pár hodin (si) poklábosili. ‘They chatted [perfective] for few hours.’ is the answer to the question Jak dlouho (…)? ‘For how long (…)?’, i.e. aquestion about the course/ duration of the event, as with imperfectives, while the question about the course/ duration of the event compatible with examples (40)–(43) are Za jak dlouho? ‘In what time?’: Za jak dlouho postavil dům? ‘In what time he has built the a/the house?’, Za jak dlouho domával křídly? ‘In what time he has stopped flapping the wings?’, Za jak dlouho (to) poznal? ‘In what time has he figured it out?’, Za jak dlouho unese 100 kilo? ‘In what time he will be able to lift 100 kilos?’, which in the case of the examples in (44) would mean aquestion about the beginning (not the course) of the event of posezení ‘sitting together’, poklábosení ‘chatting together’, or pobytí ‘being/hanging out together’.26 Let us have alook at the relation of the characteristics of perfectivity (paragraphs a)— d) above) to the set of examples (40)–(44) just discussed. The best fit can be found in (40): Postavil dům. ‘He has built [perfective] ahouse.’ implies completion of the activity of stavět ‘build’, it contains atemporal boundary (boundedness) that is given by the moment of finishing the building, it signals the achievement of an event internal/inherent result/goal, i.e. the complete, finished construction of the house, and the “building” event is presented as awhole, as afait accompli: the communication participants are not present during the ongoing process of construction, it either 24 The example dlouho jsme si popovídali appears strange or different to some native speakers, they claim they would not say it. Nevertheless, the example has been attested in corpus data. In the corpus Syn v8 (Křen et al., 2019) the collocation dlouho— popovídat occurs 18 times (7 times in preterit, 8 times in infinitive, and 3 times in present), in 3 of these examples with the comparative form déle ‘longer’ (once in present, once in preterit and once in infinitive). More occurrences can be found in the Omnia Bohemica corpus (Benko, 2017): 65 instances of the collocation posedět si dlouho, out of which is 39 in comparative and one in superlative. Common is also the collocation posedět si dlouze (84 occurrences in Omnia Bohemica and 21 in Syn v8) as well as collocations with other temporal adverbials (popovídat si na chvilku, trošku si popovídat, hodinu si popovídat, celé odpoledne si popovídat etc.) 25 On adverbial complementation in connection with aspect, see for instance Bermel & Kořánová (2008), Kořánová (2011), and Cvrček & Fidler (2017). 26 The question test was brought to my attention by Starý Kořánová, personal communication. OPEN ACCESS
ZDENěK STArý 65 has been finished already (it is thus “behind” them), or is planned in the future, i.e. it is, so to say, “ahead” of them. The perfectives in examples (41) and (35) signal suspension of the activity referred to by the morphologically perfective verb. In this sense, there is atemporal boundary/ boundedness (b), the boundary is set by the point of the event suspension. But there is no achievement of any internal goal (result), no point of completion (c). The suspension is apunctual event, and in this sense, it is hard to imagine the communicator stepping into the middle of the event (d). The examples in (42) are, similarly to (41) and (35), punctual, therefore they are conceived as awhole, i.e. it is hard to imagine stepping into the middle of the event. While in (42) and (35) the result of the event is event suspension, in (42) anew event (expressed by an imperfective in our examples) is launched (znát ‘know’, klečet ‘kneel’, stát ‘stand’, mlčet ‘be silent’, chápat ‘understand’). There is thus atemporal boundary involved, namely the temporal point from which the new event starts. If the beginning of the new event is perceived as the internal goal of the event referred to by the perfective verb, then it makes sense to speak about the perfectives in (42) as completives, achieving an internal goal/result. The examples in (43) differ considerably from the rest of the examples. We can interpret the respective sentences, i.e. the perfectives in their predicate, as referring to states, not events. The difference between stateand event-like interpretations shows if we compare the following two situations: i. Talking about the physical potential of Peter: Petr (stále) unese 100 kilo. ‘Peter still lifts / can carry 100 kg.’ is understood as astatement of Peter’s ability to lift 100 kg. ii. Peter carries a100 kg package. Comment: Podívej se, Petr (stále) unese 100 kilo. ‘Have alook, Peter still lifts / can carry 100 kg.’ While the construal of i. is astate / state-like (“nothing”, no event is going on), the construal of ii. is event-like: Peter performs the act of lifting 100 kg, and while performing the act he demonstrates his ability to lift the weight, i.e. he instaurates/manifests the state. Finally, an even stranger sub species from the point of view of the perfectivity characteristics a)— d) are the examples in (44), the so-called curbing verbs.27 There is nothing to be completed, there is no internal goal to be achieved. As far as the temporal boundary is concerned, curbing verbs imply two temporal points, namely the beginning and end of the event— they refer to an interval. But these points, as already mentioned above, are totally unspecified by the event itself. Consequently, since the curbing verbs’ events assume beginning and ending points, the only characteristics applicable to the curbing verbs is thus the fact that they conceive the event as awhole, i.e. an event which communication participants cannot “enter”. The event referred to by the verb takes place before or after the communication. The claim that the beginning and end points of curbing verbs are totally unspecified by the event itself requires some explanation. Apossible objection one might 27 See also Starý (2017b). OPEN ACCESS
66 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY raise is that in real communication they can be specified: Dnes vjednu posedíme, pobudeme, poklábosíme. ‘Today at one, we will sit, be together, have achat.’ or Dnes mezi jednou adruhou posedíme, pobudeme, poklábosíme. ‘Today between one and two we will sit, be together, have achat.’ But these specifications of the beginning and end points of the event are brought in from outside, they are not derived from the event referred to by the verb, unlike in the examples in (41)–(43), where it is the event itself that defines the point of temporal boundary (point of asymmetry, see below): Postavil dům. ‘He has built a/the house.’— the point is given by finishing the process of building; domával křídly ‘he has stopped flapping the wings’— the point is determined by the moment of suspension of the event; poznat ‘learn’— znát ‘know’— the boundary point (the point of asymmetry, see below), i.e. the beginning of the situation in which we know, is determined by the punctual event of poznat. In the examples in (43), for instance in the example stále unese 100 kilo, the situation is slightly opaque, but the temporal boundary points are still derived from the event referred to by the verb itself. The construal of the example is astate, specifically the subject’s ability to lift 100 kilos. In general, these kinds of states cannot be observed directly, we detect them through events: he lifted the 100 kilos, therefore he is able to lift that much, i.e. stále unese 100 kilo; on the other hand, these states are necessary preconditions to the respective events: to make the event of lifting 100 kilos happen, he has to be able to do so, i.e. the state stále unese 100 kilo has to hold (Vendler, 1967, p.115f; Starý Kořánová, 2019, pp.31, 32, 53, 194f). SUmmArY Figure 1 summarizes the possible construals of morphological perfective predicates as they occur in examples (40)–(43). The scale of meanings linked with the use of perfectives is thus wider and more finely structured than the commonly given characteristics. Figure 1 describes the perfectivity in terms of events. Nevertheless, it appears to be insufficient since it does not include the morphologically perfective so-called curbing verbs. Figure 1. launches an imperfective event (42) event suspension (41, 35) terminates an event reaching event internal goal (40) state and/or its instauration (43) perfective launches an imperfective event (42) event suspension (41, 35) terminates event reaching event internal goal (40) state and/or its instauration (43) Perfective point(s) of asymmetry one asymmetry point two asymmetry points (44) OPEN ACCESS
ZDENěK STArý 67 4. PERFECTIVITY AS INSTAURATION OF POINT(S) OF ASYMMETRY As we said above, examples (40)–(42) imply achange in the communicated situation. As such, they imply apoint of asymmetry: the situation before and after the change differs. The house was not there before it was built, the vase was in one piece before it was broken, the book had not been read by the subject before he has read it; the subject was flapping its wings before he stopped doing so, and was flying before he ceased flying or lost the ability to fly; the subject knew something after he has learned it, stood after he has stood up, sat after he has sat down, was silent after he had fallen silent, understood something after he had grasped it. In this sense the core of perfectivity consists in examples (40)–(42) in the inherent asymmetry of the event that is being referred to. The situation is similar in the case of the states in (43). The fact that the respective state holds, i.e. the subject is able to lift/carry 100 kg, to take care of himself, or there is enough nuts to be found around, does not imply any change of the situation, but it presupposes that the subject (specific or generic) involved has demonstrated these abilities, i.e. he has already (once) lifted/carried the 100 kg, he has been able to take care about himself, and nuts have been found around. Events which have instaurated respective states have thus established points of asymmetry of the situations referred to by the example sentences/communications. But since these events are unspecified (it is not clear when, where etc. they have (supposedly) occurred), the points of asymmetry determined by them are unspecific (generic) as well. As far as the perfectivity characteristics a)— d) above are concerned, none of them are met in instances such as those in (43): there is no event / process / activity to be finished, no specific temporal boundedness of its course, no goal it would fulfill or achieve. We could find ourselves in the middle when the states described by these sentences hold true. The non-specificity of point(s) of asymmetry as well as the absence of change incurred to the situation communicated is also characteristic for the curbing verbs, i.e. the examples in (44). But unlike the situations in (43), the situations referred to in (44) operate with two unspecific points of asymmetry— the beginning and end of the interval in which the referred event (sitting together, chatting together, or being / hanging out together) goes on. Moreover, these points are not, again, unlike in the cases in (43), relatable to the event that the verb refers to (see above). SUmmArY The core of the perfective construal of the communication is the instauration of apoint of asymmetry into the communicated situation/event. The point of asymmetry is avector: it distinguishes the situation before and after the perfective event which instaurates the point of asymmetry. It either involves change of the communicated situation or is unspecified (see above) as far as the asymmetry point is concerned. The types of perfectivity thus appear as depicted in Figure 2. OPEN ACCESS
68 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY Figure 2. 5. TIME AND SPACE: THE LANGUAGE CLINCH— CONCLUSION Language commonly shares means to express temporal and spatial relationships/ meanings. We have shown that prepositions, attributes, adverbials, events (verbs), etc. can be used in this way. In terms of Space, we talk metaphorically about Time. As we have mentioned earlier, according to recent metaphor theories, metaphor exhibits the following properties: i. Metaphor is aphenomenon relating two domains of human experience to each other. Sometimes they are called source and target domains, sometimes inputs 1 and 2, and the like. ii. Metaphor is not alanguage (use) phenomenon only. It is away ahuman conceptualizes the world. iii. Language is then the realm in which (where) the (conceptualization) operation of metaphor can be ascertained, observed, and thus studied, since to speak metaphorically means to talk in terms of one domain (source domain) about the other (target domain). The commonly shared language means used to express spatial as well as temporal meanings fulfill all three of these properties. In the case of perfectivity, it is not so. The core of perfectivity was shown to consist in the instauration of point(s) of asymmetry into the communicated situation/event. (A)symmetry is primarily ageometric notion: it appertains to shapes and certain qualities of shapes. As such, (a)symmetry is aspatial notion. Per contra, the opposition of imperfective vs. perfective as an aspectual opposition is of temporal nature. However, its temporal meaning is based on / consists in an asymmetry in/of the event (situation) referred to by the respective verb/predicate. Aspatial property is thus the basis for temporal meaning. Atemporal distinction/ meaning emerges from aspatial one. Atemporal property of an event stems from its underlying spatial quality/arrangement. launches an imperfective event (42) event suspension (41, 35) terminates an event reaching event internal goal (40) state and/or its instauration (43) perfective launches an imperfective event (42) event suspension (41, 35) terminates event reaching event internal goal (40) state and/or its instauration (43) Perfective point(s) of asymmetry one asymmetry point two asymmetry points (44) OPEN ACCESS
ZDENěK STArý 69 At the same time, there is no sharing of language means in the case of perfectivity conceived as asymmetry of the event referred to by the verb/predicate, i.e. using perfectives does not imply using spatial language means to express temporal meanings. Consequently, the metaphorical relationship of Space and Time in perfectives is lacking the property iii. of metaphor. The temporal and spatial domains are interconnected here in amore fundamental, intimate way, they are more deeply ingrained in language than can be detectable on the surface as the sharing of language means to express temporal and spatial meaning; in other words, their relationship does not surface as spatial-temporal polysemy of language expressions. In perfectivity, the spatial concept, i.e. asymmetry, produces atemporal distinction, namely the aspectual construal value of the communication: atemporal cogitandum is defined by aspatial cogitatum. Time and Space are “grown” together at first to emerge from ashared “singularity”.28 REFERENCES 28 To be compared with Barbour (1999). Barbour, J. (1999). The End of Time. Phoenix, AZ: Phoenix Books. Benko, V. (2017). Omnia Bohemica II. Available from http://unesco.uniba.sk/aranea/. Bermel, N., & Kořánová, I. (2008). From adverb to verb: Aspectual choice in the teaching of Czech as aforeign language. In C.Cravens, M.U.Fidler & S.C.Kresin (Eds.), Between Texts, Languages, and Cultures (pp. 53–70). Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, Indiana University. Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology: AStudy of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, J., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W. (1984). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Languages of the World. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Comrie, B. (1997). Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Croft, W. (2007). The origins of grammar in the verbalization of experience. Cognitive Linguitsics, 18, 339–382. Croft, W. (2012). Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cvrček, V., & Fidler, M. (2017). Probing aspectual context with keyword analysis. In A.Makarova, S.Disckey & D.Divjak (Eds.), Each Venture aNew Beginning: Studies in Honour of Laura A.Janda (pp. 279–298). Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, Indiana University. Dahl, Ö. (1985). Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Dostál, A. (1954). Studie ovidovém systému vstaroslověnštině. Praha: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Mental spaces. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. Givón, T. (1984). Syntax: AFunctional-Typological Introduction. Volume I.Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Grady, J.E. (2007). Metaphor. In D.Geeraerts & H.Cuyckens, The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 188–213). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haspelmath, M. (1997). From Space to Time. Temporal Adverbials in the World’s Languages. München, Newcastle: LINCOM Europa. Chromý, J. (2014). Impact of tense on the interpretation of bi-aspectual verbs in Czech. Studies in Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 87–97. Jakobson, R. (1932). Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums. In Charisteria Gvilelmo Mathesio OPEN ACCESS
70 STUDIE ZAPLIKOVANÉ LINGVISTIKY qvinqvagenario adiscipulis et Circuli Lingvistici Pragensis sodalibus oblata, TLCP V (pp. 74–84). Jakobson, R. (1971). Selected Writings II: Word and Language. Berlin, New York, NY, Amsterdam: Mouton Publishers. Jakobson, R. (1984). Structure of Russian Verb. In L.R.Waugh & M.Halle (Eds.), Russian and Slavic Grammar Studies 1931–1981 (pp. 1–14). Berlin, New York, NY, Amsterdam: Mouton Publishers. Karlík, P., Nekula, M., & Rusínová, Z. (1995). Příruční mluvnice češtiny. Praha: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny. Kopečný, F. (1948). Dva příspěvky kvidu ačasu včeštině. Slovo aslovesnost, 10(3), 151–170. Kopečný, F. (1949). Kneaktuálnímu významu dokonavých sloves včeštině. Slovo aslovesnost, 11(2), 64–68. Kopečný, F. (1962). Slovesný vid včeštině. Praha: Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd. Kořánová, I. (2011). Vid pro nevidomé aneb teorie signálních slov. In J.Hasil & M.Hrdlička (Eds.), Psáno do oblak. Sborník knedožitým sedmdesátinám prof. Jana Kuklíka (pp. 327–333). Praha: Karolinum. Kořánová, I. (2014). Vyjadřování přechodu mezi dvěma stavy včeštině sohledem na výuku cizinců. Studies in Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 83–91. Křen, M., Cvrček, V., Čapka, T., Čermáková, A., Hnátková, M., Chlumská, L., Jelínek, T., Kováříková, D., Petkevič, V., Procházka, P., Skoumalová, H., Škrabal, M., Truneček, P., Vondřička, P., & Zasina, A. (2019). Korpus SYN, verze 8 z12.12.2019. Praha: Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK. Available from https://www.korpus.cz/. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A.Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 2nd edition (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Mathesius, V. (1961). Obsahový rozbor současné angličtiny. Praha: Nakladatelství ČSAV. Petr, J., Komárek, M., Kořenský, J., & Veselovská, J. (1986). Mluvnice češtiny— Tvarosloví 2. Praha: Academia. Poldauf, I. (1964). Souhrnný pohled na vid vnové češtině. Slovo aslovesnost, 25(1), 46–56. Seidl, E. (1936). Zu den Funktionen des Verbalaspekts. TLCP, 6, 111–129. Seidl, E. (1939). Zur Futurbedeutung des Praesens pefectivum im Slavischen. Slavie, 17, 1–32. Sinha, C., da Silva Sinha, V., Zinken, J., & Sampaio,W. (2011). When time is not space: The social and linguistic construction of time intervals and temporal event relations in an Amazonian culture. Language and Cognition, 3(1), 137–169. Starý, Z. (2017a). Biaspectuals revisited. Studies in Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 111–123. Starý, Z. (2017b). Akomodace vidu: Pojďme posedět, poklábosit, prostě pobejt. Paper presented at the occasion of 80th birthday of Professor J.Kořenský, Olomouc. Starý Kořánová, I. (2015). States and perfectives in Czech. Paper presented at Slavic Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Sheffield-Oxford. Starý Kořánová, I. (2019). Vidová kolokabilita. Ph.D. Dissertation, Charles University, Prague. Starý Kořánová, I. (2020). Homonymy and Polysemy in Verbal Aspect. Unpublished manuscript. Trávníček, F. (1923). Studie očeském vidu. Praha: Česká akademie věd aumění. Trubetzkoy, N. (1931). Die phonologischen Systeme. TLCP, 4, 96–116. Trubetzkoy, N. (1939). Grundzüge der Phonologie. TLCP, 7. Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics and Philosophy. New York, NY: Cornell University Press. Veselý, L. (2009). Ktakzvaným kapacitivům. Naše řeč, 92(3), 113–121. Whorf, B.L. (1956). Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge: MIT Press. Zdeněk Starý | Akcent College <[email protected]> OPEN ACCESS