1 , , * Abstract The paper examines the grammatical category of the Present Perfect in Greek in terms of its relation to the concepts of current relevance and present/past time spheres on the one hand and to that of definiteness on the other. Through a number of contexts where the Present Perfect and the Aorist appear to be mutually exclusive or to give rise to different pragmatic interpretations, the relation between the two surfaces as depending on the assignment of different values to the features [±relevant] and [±anaphoric]. The values [+relevant] and [-anaphoric] attributed to the Present Perfect strongly reinforce the view that it can be seen as a tense, belonging to the present time sphere. Keywords , , , , . : , ; , ; A ; , , . : ) ( [perfective] ) i ) , , , , . ii
12
Embed
ii - philology.uoc.gr · Palmer, Frank R. 1987. The English Verb. 2nd Edition. London: Longman. , ... Disambiguating the (prototype) semantics of the linguistic metalanguage in terms
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
, , *
Abstract The paper examines the grammatical category of the Present Perfect in Greek in terms of its relation to the concepts of current relevance and present/past time spheres on the one hand and to that of definiteness on the other. Through a number of contexts where the Present Perfect and the Aorist appear to be mutually exclusive or to give rise to d ifferent pragmatic interpretations, the relation between the two surfaces as depending on the assignment of d ifferent values to the features [±relevant] and [±anaphoric]. The values [+relevant] and [-anaphoric] attributed to the Present Perfect strongly reinforce the view that it can be seen as a tense, belonging to the present time sphere.
Keywords , , , ,
.
:
, ;
, ;
A ;
,
,
.
:
)
( [perfective] )i
)
,
,
, ,
.ii
2
.iii
·
:
(1) - ; ;
(2) - ; ;
(experiential)
( . . . Dahl 1985: 139-144).
.
-
. ,
Harder (1997: 376-386),
, ,
.
« -
» (Comrie 1976: 3),
,
, :
)
. (x , ,
* , * , * .)
)
(current relevance),
( . . . Comrie 1976),
:
(i)
, , (3) (4):
(3) , .
(4) - ;
- .
3
(ii) (
, ),
,
. Comrie , ,
,
.
.
,
.
,
( . Palmer 1987, Declerck 1997: 62).
· , iv. .
« » (the present perfect puzzle) Klein (1992):
, ,
.
, .
:
1. ,
,
(5) (6):
(5) * .
(6) * .
2. , (7)
:
(7) -T ;
-* . * .
,
. ,
4
.
3.
. (8)
:
(8) .
.
:
(9) .
.
.
.
4. -
( . 2003).
(10):
(10) .[ ]. ,
, , ,
. , .
, .
.
, ,
( . 2003).
(11):
(11)
.
.
5. (12):
(12) ? .
5
? .
(13) .
.
(13), ,
(12)
·
, .
6.
:
(14) - / / ;
,
( 15) ( (
16):
(15) - / / ;
-* ;
-* ;
(16) ;
* ;
:
)
,
( . Moser 2003).
)
.
, ,
(Comrie 1985: 41).
, -
[± ] [+
]. Declerck (1991: 320),
6
( ; ; .),
« » [pre-present sector].
( , ).
,
, ,
- , ,
( . . . Allen 1966, Leech 1987).
, McCoard (1978)
.
. , ,
, (17):
(17) .
.
.
,
, , (18)
(19):
(18) .
(19) .
.
,
(20):
(20) * .
?? .v
, .
.
7
(anaphorically),vi
, .vii
Michaelis (1998: 226) :
[+ ]
( ) ,
.
(Dinsmore 1981, Michaelis 1998), (21):
(21) - ;
- . / *
.
( )
- . / * .
( )
( .
). ,
,
, .
, (7).
.
(8) (9).
, (10).
, , ,
.
,
.
:
(22) ;
(23) ;
8
(24):
(24) - ! !
- / * . .
( . Michaelis (1998:
250) (25):
(25) ;
,
:
(26) ;
.
,
,
,
· ,
(27) (28):
(27) * .
(28) * .
/ :
(29) .
(30) .
,
.
·
, ,
, (31):
(31) .
, ,
,
, ,
, viii.
9
,
. ,
, ( .
Moser 1988), ,
.
.
,
.
:
)
,
.
)
.
.
,
, .
* - , - , .
i . . . 1989, Holton et al. 1997. ii ·
Veloudis 1989.
iii ( « » [hot news])
(Moser 1988, Iatridou, Anagnostopoulou & Pancheva 2003). iv (stative verbs)
Allen, Robert L. 1966. The Verb System of Present Day American English. The Hague/ Paris:
Mouton.
, . 1990. O : /
.
10: 359-378.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
________ 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dahl, Osten. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell.
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. Tense in English: Its Structure and Use in Discourse. London: Routledge.
________ 1997. When-clauses and Temporal Structure. London/ New York: Routledge.
Dinsmore, John. 1981. Tense choice and time specification in English . Linguistics 19: 475-494.
Harder, Peter. 1997. Functional Semantics: A Theory of Meaning, Structure and Tense in English.
Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Holton, David , Peter Mackridge & Irene Philippaki-Warburton. 1997. Greek Grammar: A
Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language. London/ New York: Routledge.
Iatridou, Sabine, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Roumyana Pancheva. 2003. Observations about
the form and meaning of the Perfect . In Alexiadou et al. (eds.), 153-204.
K , & , ,
- , . 1999. ,
- . : . .
:
.
Klein, Wolfgang. 1992. The present perfect puzzle . Language 68.3: 525-552.
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1987. Meaning and the English Verb. 2nd Edition. London: Longman.
McCoard, Robert W. 1978. The English Perfect: Tense Choice and Pragmatic Inferences. Amsterdam:
North Holland.
Michaelis, Laura A. 1998. Aspectual Grammar and Past Time Reference. London/ New York:
Routledge.
Moser, Amalia. 1988. The History of the Perfect Periphrases in Greek. Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Cambridge.
________ 2003. Tense, aspect and the Greek perfect . In Alexiadou et al. (eds.), 235-252.
M , . 2003. :
- . :
-Warburton, . -
, , , &
( .), 357-374. : .
11
Palmer, Frank R. 1987. The English Verb. 2nd Edition. London: Longman.
, . 1989. , :
.
9: 369-388.
Veloudis, Ioannis. 1989. Disambiguating the (prototype) semantics of the linguistic
metalanguage in terms of pragmatics: the case of TMA systems . Unpublished
manuscript.
________ 2003. Possession and conversation: the case of the category Perfect . In: Alexiadou et
al. (eds.), 381-399.
Psaltou-Joycey, Angeliki. 1993. Specification of temporal intervals and situations in the
Perfect . In Philippaki-Warburton, Irene, Katerina Nicolaid is & Maria Sifianou (eds.)
Themes in Greek Linguistics: Papers from the First International Conference on Greek Linguistics.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
This document was created with Win2PDF available at http://www.daneprairie.com.The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only.