Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T17:28:06.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relation between aspect and inversion in English1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2015

ASTRID DE WIT
ASTRID DE WIT*
Affiliation:
Université Libre de Bruxelles, Campus du Solbosch, CP175, Avenue F. D. Roosevelt 50, 1050 BrusselsBelgiumastrid.dwt@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article discusses the peculiar use of the simple present/past in full-verb inversion (i.e. locative inversion, directional inversion, quotative inversion, presentational there), and the corresponding scarcity of progressive aspect in these contexts. While it is normally ungrammatical in English to use the simplex tenses to report events that are ongoing at reference time, inversion seems to defy this restriction. Building on a combination of insights from analyses of aspect and of full-verb inversion in English, this study presents a cognitive-functional explanation for this exceptional characteristic of inversion that has gone largely unnoticed in previous accounts. I argue that there exists a canonical relationship between the preposed ground and the postposed figure in full-verb inversion and that this meaning of canonicity ties in perfectly with the perfective value that I deem constitutive of the English simple tenses. In addition, some cases of directional inversion involve a ‘deictic effect’ (Drubig 1988): in these instances, the conceptualizer's vantage point is anchored within the ground and the denoted (dis)appearance of the figure is construed as inevitable. On the basis of a large sample of corpus data and native-speaker elicitations, I demonstrate that the use of the progressive is disallowed in inverted contexts that involve a deictic effect, while its use is dispreferred but not excluded in other cases of inversion. This study thus brings together insights from the domains of information structure and aspect in English, and merges these into a comprehensive cognitive account.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 107 - 128
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

1

The present analysis was written at the University of Colorado at Boulder under a fellowship granted by the Belgian American Educational Foundation. I thank Laura Michaelis and Frank Brisard for our challenging discussions on the ideas presented in this article, and the editor of ELL and two anonymous reviewers for their detailed comments on previous versions of this analysis. I further wish to express my gratitude to Betty Birner and Carlos Prado-Alonso for allowing me to make use of their corpus data, and to Jena Hwang for assisting me in collecting my own.

References

Austin, John L. 1962. How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty J. 1994. Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion. Language 70, 233–59.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty J. 1995. Pragmatic constraints on the verb in English inversion. Lingua 97, 233–56.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty J. & Ward, Gregory. 1992. On the interpretation of VP inversion in American English. Journal of Linguistics 28, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birner, Betty J. & Ward, Gregory. 1993. There-sentences and inversion as distinct constructions: A functional account. Proceedings of the nineteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 27–39.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty J. & Ward, Gregory. 1998. Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and form. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1994. Locative inversion and the architecture of Universal Grammar. Language 70, 72–131.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brisard, Frank. 2002. The English present. In Brisard, Frank (ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference, 251–97. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Calver, Edward. 1946. The uses of the present tense forms in English. Language 22 (4), 317–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Rong. 2003. English inversion: A ground-before-figure construction. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, Sarah & Timberlake, Alan. 1985. Tense, aspect and mood. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Grammatical categories and the lexicon, vol. 3: Language typology and syntactic description, 202–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coopmans, Peter. 1989. Where stylistic and syntactic processes meet: Locative inversion in English. Language 65 (4), 728–51.Google Scholar
Croft, William & Cruse, Alan D.. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
De Wit, Astrid. Forthcoming. The present perfective paradox across languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Wit, Astrid & Brisard, Frank. 2014. A Cognitive Grammar account of the semantics of the English present progressive. Journal of Linguistics 50 (1), 49–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickey, Stephen M. 2000. Parameters of Slavic aspect: A cognitive approach. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Dorgeloh, Heidrun. 1997. Inversion in Modern English: Form and function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1975. The stative in the progressive and other essence/accident contrasts. Linguistic Inquiry 6, 579–88.Google Scholar
Drubig, Hans-Bernard. 1988. On the discourse function of subject-verb inversion. In Klegraf, Josef & Nehls, Dietrich (eds.), Essays on the English language and applied linguistics on the occasion of Gerhard Nickel's 60th birthday, 83–95. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John & Woisetschlaeger, Erich Friedrich. 1982. The logic of the English progressive. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 79–89.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1982. Colloquial and literary uses of inversions. In Tannen, Deborah (eds.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy, 119–53. Norwood, NY: Ablex.Google Scholar
Hirtle, Walter H. 1967. The simple and the progressive forms: An analytical approach. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.Google Scholar
Hirtle, Walter H. 1995. The simple form again: An analysis of direction-giving and related uses. Journal of Pragmatics 24, 265–81.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1979. Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In Givon, Talmy (ed.), Discourse and syntax, 213–41. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1982. Aspect between discourse and grammar: An introductory essay to the volume. In Hopper, Paul J. (ed.), Tense–aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics, 3–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok. 2003. English locative inversion: Grammatical interfaces and constructions. Proceedings of the twenty-ninth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 267–82.Google Scholar
Kreyer, Rolf. 2006. Inversion in modern written English: Syntactic complexity, information status and the creative writer. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1993. Nouns and verbs. Language 63, 53–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2001. The English present tense. English Language and Linguistics 5, 251–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2011. The English present. In Patard, Adeline & Brisard, Frank (eds.), Cognitive approaches to tense, aspect and epistemic modality, 45–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. Meaning and the English verb. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 1998. Aspectual grammar and past-time reference. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2004. Type shifting in Construction Grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive linguistics 15, 1–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura. 2006. Time and tense. In Aarts, Bas & McMahon, April (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 220–34. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura. 2011. Stative by construction. Linguistics 49, 1359–99.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary Lee. 1974. Existential sentences in English. PhD thesis: MIT.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1984. Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 7, 243–86.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara & Borschev, Vladimir. 2007. Existential sentences, BE and the genitive of negation in Russian. In von Heusinger, Klaus & Comorovski, Ileana (eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax, 147–90. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Penhallurick, John. 1984. Full-verb inversion in English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 4, 33–56.Google Scholar
Petré, Peter. Forthcoming. Semanticization and frequency. On the changing textual functions of [BE Ving] from Old to Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 20 (1).Google Scholar
Prado-Alonso, Carlos. 2011. Full-verb inversion in written and spoken English. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael S. & Culicover, Peter W.. 1990. English focus constructions and the theory of grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1997. The parameter of aspect, 2nd edition. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. 1981. On the history of the verb-second rule in English. In Fisiak, Jacek (eds.), Historical syntax, 575–92. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido. 2005. Simple tense. In Dikken, Marcel Den & Tortora, Christina (eds.), The function of function words and functional categories, 187–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vlach, Frank. 1981. The semantics of the progressive. In Tedeschi, Philip J. & Zaenen, Annie (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 14: Tense and aspect, 415–34. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, Gert. 2011. Motivating non-canonicality in Construction Grammar: The case of locative inversion. Cognitive linguistics 22 (1), 81–105.Google Scholar
Williams, Christopher. 2002a. Non-progressive and progressive aspect in English. Fasano: Schena editore.Google Scholar
Williams, Christopher. 2002b. Non-progressive aspect in English in commentaries and demonstrations using the present tense. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 1235–56.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

De Wit supplementary material

Appendix

Download De Wit supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 348.6 KB