The evaluation of aspectual distance, speed and progress.
The adverbial expressions to be discussed in this talk belong to the general realm of
imperfective aspect in that they concern the internal structure of events and states, i.e. their
beginning, continuation or ending. The four basic elements not yet, already, still and no longer,
as well as their counterparts in various other (European) languages, have been discussed at
length in the literature, and have been given various labels, such as perspectivity particles (Van
Baar,1990; Vandeweghe,1992; Declerck, 1994), particles of change and continuation (Van
Baar,1991; Van der Auwera,1991a,b), phasal adverbials (Löbner, 1990/1999; Van der Auwera,
1998) or phasal polarity items (Van Baar, 1997). The figure in (1), which focusses on the Dutch
adverbials, demonstrates that the meaning of the four basic elements can be defined in terms of
the three binary parameters U, V, and W given in (2), which are independent but nevertheless
mutually interrelated:
nog niet
al
nog
niet meer
[B-]
B
[B+]
[E+]
E
[E-]
-------------------|+++++++++++++++++++++++++|------------------negative
negative
positive
positive
(2)
beginning
beginning
prospective
retrospective
a. actual polarity
b. polarity transition
c. perspective
ending
ending
prospective
retrospective
U = 1 (positive polarity)
V = 1 (beginning = -/+)
W = 1 (retrospective)
U = 0 (negative polarity)
V = 0 (ending = +/-)
W = 0 (prospective)
In terms of these parameters nog niet, for instance, gets assigned UVW values 010: the
temporal reference point is located in an area of negative polarity (U=0) related to the polarity
transition of beginning (V=1) and prospectively looking towards that transition (W=0). In addition
to the objective (or extensional) information encoded in these three parameters, many aspectual
adverbials, especially the more complex ones, also convey additional subjective or evaluative
(i.e. intensional) information. Although, for Dutch at least, the two particular subclasses of
evaluative adverbials illustrated in (3) and (4) have been studied in quite some detail recently,
the descriptions of the two groups have basically been independent of one another:
(3)
(4)
De gezichten zijn nog lang niet te herkennen. (‘The faces are not recognizable by far’)
De gezichten zijn bijna niet meer te herkennen. (‘… almost no longer recognizable’)
De gezichten zijn nog altijd niet te herkennen. (‘…still not recognizable’)
De gezichten zijn eindelijk te herkennen. (‘… finally recognizable’)
De gezichten zijn al niet meer te herkennen. (‘… already no longer recognizable’)
In the case of (3), the evaluative dimension concerns the distance between the (implicit)
temporal reference point and the polarity transitions of beginning (B) or ending (E): nog lang niet
locates the reference time at a long distance before the beginning, whereas bijna niet meer
locates it very close before the ending. The precise nature of the meaning difference between
the basic adverbials in (1) and the more complex ones in (4) has been a matter of considerable
debate in the literature. The present proposal can be considered to occupy an intermediate
position in between the “minimalist” approach of van der Auwera (1998) in terms of emphatic
counterparts and the “maximalist” approach of Löbner (1999) in terms of presuppositions. The
idea is that the expressions in (4) combine two types of evaluation, namely that of speed and
that of progress. The intermediate eindelijk on the one hand resembles nog altijd niet in
evaluating the course of events as lacking speed (as opposed to al niet meer) but on the other
hand resembles al niet meer in evaluating the course of events as making progress (as
opposed to nog altijd niet). Similarly to the UVW parameters in (2), the three evaluative
dimensions in (3-4) are represented as three binary parameters X, Y and Z in (5):
(5)
a. evaluation of distance
b. evaluation of speed
c. evaluation of progress
X = 1 (long distance)
Y = 1 (speed)
Z = 1 (progress)
X = 0 (short distance)
Y = 0 (lack of speed)
Z = 0 (lack of progress)
Although the expressions in (3) do not evaluate for speed or progress, whereas those in (4) do
not evaluate for distance, this mutual exclusion is not a necessary one. And indeed, the focus of
this talk will precisely be on expressions such as the ones in (6) which do combine all three
evaluative dimensions. With nog altijd lang niet the reference time is far before the beginning,
and the course of events lacks both speed and progress, whereas with al bijna niet meer the
reference time is very close to the ending of a course of events with fast progress. The table in
(7) summarizes the values for the different parameters, and reflects the growing semantic
complexity ranging from four to six parameters:
(6)
De gezichten zijn nog altijd lang niet te herkennen. (‘still not recognizable by far’)
De gezichten zijn al bijna niet meer te herkennen. (‘already almost no longer’)
(7)
(3)
(4)
(6)
aspectual evaluation
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
nog lang niet
0
1
0
1
-
-
bijna niet meer
1
0
0
0
-
-
nog altijd niet
0
1
0
-
0
0
eindelijk
1
1
1
-
0
1
al niet meer
0
0
1
-
1
1
nog altijd lang niet
0
1
0
1
0
0
al bijna niet meer
1
0
0
0
1
1
The aim of this talk is to chart the constraints on the “logical space” generated by the six
binary parameters. Although, theoretically speaking, 64 logical combinations of six values
are available (2 to the power 6) quite a few of them are excluded in principle. Previous
research has already revealed two types of constraints. First of all, it has been shown that
only four out of the eight combinations of UVW values are possible (e.g. being located in a
negative polarity area of the beginning transition necessearily implies being prospective),
thus reducing the total number of possibilities from 64 to 32. Secondly, only three out of
four combinations of YZ values turned out to be possible (one cannot have speed without
progress), yielding a further reduction to 24 possibilities.
The present proposal then investigates a third type of contraints, namely those
between the evaluative X parameter of distance on the one hand, and the other two
evaluative parameters Y and Z of speed and progress on the other hand. Thus, in the
prospective case, the evaluation of fast progress (YZ=11) does not readily combine with
still being a long distance before the polarity transition (X=1). Conversely, in the
retrospective case, that same evaluation of fast progress (YZ=11) conflicts with still being
only a short distance beyond the polarity transition (X=0). Thirdly, in the retrospective
case, the evaluation of slow progress (YZ=01) is not really compatible with already being a
long distance beyond the polarity transition (X=1).
References
Declerck, R.: 1994, ‘The only/already puzzle : A question of perspective’, Cognitive
Linguistics 6(4), 307-350.
Löbner, S.: 1990, Wahr neben Falsch. Duale Operatoren als die Quantoren natürlicher
Sprache, Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen.
Löbner, S.: 1999, ‘Why German schon and noch are still duals: a reply to van der Auwera’,
Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 45-107.
Michaelis, L. A.: 1996, ‘On the use and meaning of already’, Linguistics and Philosophy
19, 477-502.
Mittwoch, A.: 1993, ‘The relationship between schon/already and noch/still : a reply to
Löbner’, Natural Language Semantics 2, 71-82.
Van Baar, T.: 1990, The Dutch Perspectivity Particles in FG (Working Papers in Functional
Grammar 36), Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Van Baar, T.: 1991, ‘Adverbs and Particles of Change and Continuation outside Europe’,
in J. van der Auwera (ed), Adverbs and Particles of Change and Continuation
(EUROTYP Working Papers, Volume 2), European Science Foundation, Strasbourg
, pp. 117-130.
Van Baar, T.: 1997, Phasal Polarity. Studies in Language and Language Use 30. IFOTT,
Amsterdam.
van der Auwera, J.: 1993, ‘ 'Already' and 'still' : beyond duality’, Linguistics and Philosophy
16, 613-653.
van der Auwera, J.: 1998, ‘Phasal adverbials in the languages of Europe’, in J. van der
Auwera and D. P. Ó Baoill (eds). Adverbial constructions in the languages of
Europe, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. pp. 25-145
Vandeweghe, W.: 1992, Perspectivische evaluatie in het Nederlands : de partikels van de
AL/NOG/PAS-groep, Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde,
Gent.