Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
1. Introduction
This paper is a sketch of some of the issues concerning the relation between
aspect and mood, more particularly the interaction of the perfective imperfective distinction and the mood dimension of the positive imperative. As
far as we know, this issue has never been dealt from a typological point of
view. Section 2 discusses the perfective imperfective distinction, section 3
is about imperatives, section 4 presents data, and section 5 offers explanations. Section 6 is the summary.
Our data come from two databases: a (positive) imperative database
of 419 languages in the dissertation Schalley (In progress), constructed
along the lines of Rijkhoff, Bakker, Hengeveld and Kahrel (1993), and a
partially overlapping prohibitive database compiled by van der Auwera,
based on the restricted sample of 179 languages found in Miestamo
(2005) this includes one language for each genus (in the sense of Dryer
2000) at the ratio of the coverage of the macro-area (see again Dryer
2000) that gets the worst coverage (see Miestamo 2005: 27-39 for discussion).
though the terminology suggests a neat two-way distinction, in some languages they may be members of a larger set, sometimes comprising a socalled aorist, for example. Third, it is often difficult to distinguish the
categories of perfective and imperfective from other, related categories,
e.g., the perfect. Fourth, not all linguists use the terms in the same way.
Finally, not all languages have grammaticalized the distinction, and if they
have, they may have done it in different ways. One important parameter is
the degree of grammaticalization: does aspect have a syntactic, periphrastic
exponent or has it reached morphology, and if the latter is the case, what
kind of word does it manifest itself on (the auxiliary, the lexical verb, or
something other than a verb). Another important parameter is the formal
markedness (or degree of overtness; Haspelmath 2006) of the distinction, in
the sense that the perfective or the imperfective may contrast in that only
one has an overt morphosyntactic exponent. In Russian (1) the perfective
form napisal equals the imperfective pisal, but it has the additional perfectivizing prefix na-. So the forms differ in formal markedness, and the distinction is shown in the morphology.2
(1)
Russian
a.
Ja
pisal
1SG.NOM
write.IMPF.PST.SG.M
I was writing/wrote the letter
b.
Ja
na-pisal
1SG.NOM
PF-write.PST.SG.M
I wrote (up) the letter.
pismo.
letter.ACC.SG
pismo.
letter.ACC.SG
w
ky.
3SG say
3SG.LOG
IMPF go
He said that he goes.
In this example, the imperfective is marked with the suffix k, and the perfective with the suffix h.3
3. Imperative
Languages that have grammaticalized the perfective imperfective distinction also differ as to whether it is relevant in the imperative mood. We will
focus on positive imperatives4 and on one that could be called direct (see
also Schalley In progress). A direct imperative is a construction that is morphosyntactically dedicated to expressing an appeal to the hearer(s) to do
something. (4) lists three examples for direct positive imperatives.
(4)
a.
b.
c.
Spanish
Llor-a!
cry-IMP.2SG
Cry!5
English
Cry!
Sawu (Central Malayo-Polynesian, Indonesia, Walker
1982: 33)
go
we
ri
ou
ne
fetch.SG
IMP ERG 2SG ABS ART
kuhi de
key
DEM
Fetch the key!
a.
b.
(6)
Russian
a.
Pishi
pismo
write.IMPF.IMP.2SG
letter.ACC.SG
Write the letter!
b.
Na-pishi
pismo
PF-write.IMP.2SG
letter.ACC.SG
Write the letter!
But the language that has both imperfective and perfective imperatives is
only one of four logical possiblities. Are there any languages with imperatives are obligatorily neither imperfective nor perfective? Are there languages in which the imperatives are obligatorily perfective? And finally,
are there languages in which the imperatives are obligatorily imperfective?
The answers to each question will be postive.
A language in which the imperatives cannot have any perfective
imperfective marking is Yucatek Maya. In this language, the imperative
suffixes occupy the same slot as the perfective and imperfective suffixes
and the two types of suffixes are incompatible.
(7)
Another possible example is Tondi Songway Kiini. But here the situation is
not that clear, and this has to with the fact that at least in indicatives the
perfective marking is zero. (8) illustrates the imperative in Tondi Songway
Kiini.
(8)
ky!
2PL.IMP
go
Go!
It is important to point out that this overview only deals with the
direct imperatives which have to be either perfective or imperfective (the
first, third and fourth type exemplified above) or cannot be perfective or
imperfective (the second type). For some languages, the basic direct imperatives can be argued to be aspect neutral, but they may optionally be
enriched by perfective or imperfective marking. In Tukang Besi, the direct
imperative is arguably neutral, but the verbal form also accepts the perfec-
(12)
A final note is that we dare not, at this stage, pronounce any frequency claims. To do this well one would need a careful study of the relevance and the nature of aspect distinctions in indicatives as well. One
would expect, for instance, that the perfective imperfective distinction matters for imperatives only if it also matters for indicatives.10 We leave this
for future research.
5.
Get that Summer Static sticker on your vehicle now, and be listening to 88.9 SHINE.FM! (De Clerck 2006: 19)
not semantically perfective: on the assumption that even the Tukang Besi
bare stem imperative is predominantly perfective and that the politeness
meaning is a derived meaning, the addition of an exclusively perfective
suffix is relatively redundant and thus free for a derived meaning (cp.
Malchukov 2001: 174 on the politeness use of a perfectivizing suffix in the
imperatives of the Tungusic language Even).11
A second explanatory factor may be formal. Imperatives are crosslinguistically relatively simple constructions: they are often limited to second persons, they have limited tense options, and they often lack agreement
morphology.12 From that point of view, one would expect imperatives to be
aspectually simple too, which would then result in the imperative taking the
morphosyntactic trimming of either the perfective or the imperfective,
whatever happens to be simpler. English again serves to illustrate this
point: the bare stem sing is simpler than the periphrastic be singing, which
makes it unsurprising that the normal imperative is sing. Or consider Tukang Besi: the bare stem kede is simpler than the suffixed kedemo form,
which might (help) explain why the normal imperative is kede. Note that
the formal argument does not really force any view on whether the meaning
of the simple format imperative is either perfective or imperfective or, instead, aspect neutral. Another point is that the above argument related the
degree of formal markedness of either perfective or imperfective to the
relatively low degree of formal markedness of the imperative. But this relation is not necessary. It is a well-known observation in the typological literature that formally marked categories are more restricted in their distribution as compared to unmarked ones (Croft 1990: 157). From this point of
view the imperative could be a context that the more restricted format
might not extend to. Note, finally, that the pragmatic and the formal factors
may reinforce one another. Thus the absence of the progressive form in the
English imperative can be attributed both to formal markedness and to the
perfective bias of the imperatives. However, they could be in conflict as
well. Thus in Qiang the imperative uses the perfective, even though it is a
marked form (which also marks direction).
(14)
6. Conclusion
In this paper we had a preliminary look at the interaction of mood and aspect, more particularly, at the relevance of the perfective imperfective distinction for positive imperatives. We found there to be at least four types of
languages: in some languages the imperatives are obligatorily either perfective or imperfective. Other languages do not have that choice: the imperatives have to be aspect-neutral, or they have to be imperfective, or they
have to be perfective. We then speculated about the explanations for these
facts. We focussed on three factors: (i) imperatives may be expected to be
typically and most often result-oriented, which yields a preference for perfective imperatives, (ii) imperatives are typicallly coded in a relatively simple format, which may line them up with whatever aspect type happens to
be formally simpler, and (iii) imperatives are future oriented, a fact that
harmonizes better with the imperfective aspect.
Abbreviations
ABS absolutive, ACC accusative, ART article, CONT continuative,
DEF definite, DEM demostrative, FUT future, IMP imperative,
IMPF imperfective, IND indicative, IRR irrealis, LOG logophoric,
M masculine, NOM nominative, PF perfective, PL plural, POSS
possessive, PRS present, PRT preterit, SG singular, TR transitive.
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Thanks are due to the University of Antwerp, Princeton University, and the
Flemish Science Foundation. They supported the first author during a sabbatical in Princeton, and the University of Antwerp further supported the third author with a predoctoral fellowship. Thanks are also due to Daniel Van Olmen.
Overall, Russian aspect is more complex than would appear from example
(1). For one thing, certain verbs have a marked imperfective (secondary imperfectivization). Second, for some aspectual pairs the formal markedness is
the other way round. Nevertheless, the contrast illustrated in (1) is the majority pattern and there is furthermore a correlation with functional markedness
(Jakobson 1957; Bondarko 1971; Meluk 1988: 28), as manifested in neutralization contexts.
Perhaps the clause-initial prefixes k- and t-, glossed as temporal in (3), are
aspectual as well (compare Lehmann, Shin, and Verhoeven 2000; Bohnemeyer 2002: 216-344), but then again, both aspects are marked. Note also that
for intransitive verbs there are two main groups as concerns markedness of
aspect: intransitive verbs of the inactive class are morphologically marked in
the imperfective by the suffix Vl while the perfective is . In contrast, intransitive verbs from the active class are morphologically marked in the perfective by the suffix nah while the imperfective is . Then there is a third
class, and here both the perfective and the imperfective are marked (cf. e.g.
Bohnemeyer 2002).
One might assume that aspect distinctions made in positive sentences carry
over to negative sentences, but as we know for declaratives (Miestamo 2005:
180-181; Miestamo and van der Auwera In print), that would be a mistake.
The English imperative does not show number, but here and elsewhere the
gloss will make clear whether number is expressed in the source language.
This is not to say this ending does not occur anywhere else in Spanish verbal
paradigms. Thus the indicative present third person singular may also be
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
marked with an a. This is considered homonomy and the rule of thumb for
ruling out homonyny is that for morphological dedication only second persons are to be considered.
Interestingly, aspect does seem to matter for prohibitives. The language has
negative markers: perfective n and imperfective s, and it is the latter that is
used in prohibitives.
(a)
Tondi Songway Kiini (Heath 2005: 174)
s
ky!
IMP.2PL
PROH go
Dont go!
The imperfectivity of the prohibitive is a problem for both analyses. If one
takes the positive imperative to have no aspect, one should explain why the
prohibitive does have it, and if one takes the positive imperative to be perfective, then one has to explain why its negative counterpart switches aspect.
This stem is normally prefixed, except precisely in the imperative, and for this
reason one may resist considering the stem itself imperfective (thanks are due
to Samia Nam (Paris) for this point). But even then the imperfective and the
imperative will be considered to use the same stem and thus show at least an
affinity. Note that the true, prefixed imperative can also convey imperative
meaning (Woidich 2006: 276).
Note that the imperative is irrealis. Just like in Tondi Songway Kiini, it is
interesting to look at the prohibitive. Like in Tondi Songway Kiini, the prohibitive is necessarilly imperfective, but whereas the Tondi Songway Kiini
the prohibitive is arguably irrealis (Heath 2005: 175), the one in Misantla Totonac is arguably realis (MacKay 1999: 201).
This is not say that imperatives may not have distinctions that are unique to
them (see van der Auwera, De Vogelaer and Schalley In print), but this is
probably very rare.
We do not claim that politeness can only accrue to redundant perfective morphology; Gusev (2005: 76), for one, notes politeness effects for imperfectives.
Note the hedge in the phrase relatively simple though: in about half of the
419 languages studied by Schalley (In progress), imperatives have overt morphological marking, even for a singular or a number neutral form.
Interestingly, in some languages (Schalley In progress lists Georgian, Laz,
Monumbo, Yapese, Bambara and, with some reservation, Jola-Fogny and
Pampangan), imperatives are morphologically identical with past tense forms.
If imperatives are preferentially perfective and if in these languages the past
tense historically derives from perfective aspect, this paradoxical fact makes
sense. (There is another, pragmatic explanation, however, offered in Schalley
(In progress): one presents the wished for state of affairs as already in effect,
thus allowing no other option for the hearer than to catch up with reality and
do what the speaker wants him/her to do.)
References
References 15
2005
Tipologija specializirovannyx glagolnyx form imperativa [Typology of specialized verbal imperative forms]. Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Moscow University.
Haspelmath, Martin
2006
Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of
Linguistics 42: 25-70.
Heath, Jeffrey
2005
Tondi Songway Kiini (Songhay, Mali). Reference Grammar and
TSK-English-French Dictionary. Stanford: Center for the Study
of Language and Information.
Jakobson, Roman
1957
Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. Selected Writings. Vol. 2. Word and Language, 130-147.The Hague: Mouton.
LaPolla, Randy with Chenglong Huang
2003
A grammar of Qiang with Annotated Texts and Glossary. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Lehmann, Christian
1990
Yukatetisch. Zeitschrift fr Sprachwissenschaft 9: 28-51.
Lehmann, Christian, Yong-Min Shin, and Elisabeth Verhoeven
2000
Person Prominence and Relation Prominence. On the Typology
of Syntactic Relations with Special Reference to Yucatec Maya.
Mnchen: Lincom Europa.
Louwerse, John
1988
The Morphosyntax of Una in Relation to Discourse Structure. A
Descriptive Analysis. Canberra: Australian National University.
Mackay, Carolyn J.
1999
A Grammar of Misantla Totonac. Salt Lake City: University of
Utah Press.
Malchukov, Andrej
2001
Imperative constructions in Even. In Typology of Imperative
Constructions. Victor S. Xrakovskij, 159-180. Munich: Lincom
Europa/
Meluk, Igor. A.
1988
Kurs Obej Morfologij [A course of general morphology] Vol.
2. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kultury.
Miestamo, Matti
2005
Standard Negation. The Negation of Declarative Verbal Main
Clauses in a Typological Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Miestamo, Matti and Johan van der Auwera
In print Negation and perfective vs imperfective aspect In: Chronos 7.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.