Semantic feature analysis can also be applied to the meaning of sentences. On the sentence level, we will look at a semantic area called aspect. There are at least four reasons why we need to talk about aspect. 1) The area is still poorly represented in grammar books where it is normally treated as tense. 2) It is an area of language that is difficult to learn (and teach). 3) Most language learners acquire aspect very late if at all. I remember struggling with it for a long time and getting confusing instruction on it. 4) It provides nice evidence for the Principle of Compositionality (Frege's Principle): Sentence meaning is meaning of words and meaning of syntactic structure.
Both tense and aspect are areas of meaning dealing with time. Tense takes an external viewpoint; its purpose is to locate events in time. For example, we use tense when we say the sentence At eight, mother went to the store. It locates the event go to the store in time by giving it the time location at eight. Aspect takes an inherent viewpoint; its purpose is to present the inherent time structure of the event. For example, we use aspect when we say the sentence Mother was going to the store. It presents the inherent time structure of going to the store, which takes a while and consists of several stages, such as getting into the car, driving, parking, getting out of the car, and entering the store.
The time structure of (uninflected) events like [Mother go to the store] is expressed on the sentence level. You can see this easily by changing parts of the sentence. When we say Mother went to the store we are looking at a one-time short event. When we say Mother went to stores we are looking at a longer event that has several different stages or sub-events. The same is true for Mothers went to the store. The event expressed at the sentence level takes even longer when we say Mothers went to stores.
We can describe the time properties of events on the sentence level - called situation aspect - by using semantic features. There are three features that can be distinguished for this purpose: dynamic, telic, durative. Let me give you examples and reasons for each of them.
Dynamic refers to whether a situation changes internally over time or not. Our sample sentence Mother went to the store, for example, has the inherent stages of getting into the car, driving, parking, getting out of the car, and entering the store. It is [+ dynamic]. We can also tell that an event is dynamic when it can be combined with dynamic adverbs like quickly: mother quickly went to the store. By contrast, Mother is tall is [- dynamic]. It does not have such stages that we could list. It therefore can not be combined with quickly: *Mother is tall quickly. (Recall that the asterisk means unacceptable sentence.)
Telic refers to whether a situation has a logical endpoint in time or not. The sample sentence Mother arrived at the store, for example, has the logical or natural endpoint of getting to the store. It is [+ telic]. We determine whether an event is telic (i.e., has a natural endpoint) by applying the following test question: "If Mother was arriving at the store and was interrupted while arriving, has she arrived yet?" If the answer is no, the situation is telic; if it is yet, the situation is not telic. The answer here is no because she hasn't arrived yet; so the situation must be telic. In comparison, if we take the situation Mother walked in the park, and we apply this test, the answer will be yes. See for yourself: "If mother walked in the park and was interrupted while walking in the park, has she walked in the park yet?" Certainly we can say that Mother has walked already (even if she hasn't finished her walk). This situation does not have a natural endpoint and is therefore [- telic].
Durative refers to whether a situation takes time or not. The sample sentence Mother went to the store, for example, takes time during which all its inherent stages happen. It is [+ durative]. We can probe whether an event is durative by combining it with adverbs that express a period of time, such as for one hour. For example, Mother went to the store for one hour works well. By contrast, an example of a sentence that is [- durative] would be She won the race. Winning a race only takes a split second. When we combine this sentence with the adverbial phrase for one hour, as in She won the race for one hour, we don't get an acceptable sentence unless we re-interpret it. The re-interpreted sentence would mean something like she appeared to be winning the race for one hour, but it would not mean that the actual winning took an hour. At the same time, if we combine it with a point-in-time adverb like at eight we get the acceptable sentence She won the race at eight because the situation is [- durative].
Why don't you practice these three time properties of sentences by finding your own examples. Find two sample sentences for each category: one for the positive value and one for the negative value of the category. Altogether you will have 6 sample sentences. Use the two adverbs (quickly and for an hour/at eight) and the question (for telic) from above and combine them with the sample sentences you come up with. These combinations will be your tests. So for example, if you make up the sentence Our dog was eight years old you would combine it with at eight to test whether it is [- durative]. The resulting sentence Our dog was eight years old at eight does not make much sense because the situation is [+ durative] while the adverb is [-durative]. Go to the items Semantics 1-4 in FirstClass and post your six examples (one pair of sentences for each semantic feature). Compare and discuss each others' sentences.
Now that we have accounted for the time structure of events, we need to talk about another component of aspect. Remember how I told you at the beginning of this section that we use aspect when we say the sentence Mother was going to the store. I told you that this is aspect because we are interested in the inherent stages of the event of going to the store. You can see this better when we compare the two sentences below:
To summarize, aspect has two components: the time structure of events and the viewpoints expressed by the -ed and -ing forms. Why don't you take your six sentences from the previous exercise and put them in the -ed (=simple) form and the -ing (=progressive) form. See which sentences work with the -ing form and which ones don't. Not all events can be put in the progressive (which is one of the reasons that I decided to spend time on aspect). It is extremely difficult for language teachers to explain that many [- durative] events can't be put in the progressive (because the event in progress in the progressive implies duration). Explain briefly what the difference is in meaning between the sentences with the -ed form and the -ing form. Go to the items Semantics 1-4 in FirstClass and post your 12 examples (two pairs of sentences for each semantic feature). Compare and discuss each others' sentences. Good luck!
This was hard work for all of us, I'm sure. The meaning of aspect is tricky because it is located at the sentence level. There are many factors playing a role when we look at sentences (see the Principle of Compositionality in the book). At the same time, this is good practice to look at the meanings of sentences and to practice analyzing these meanings linguistically. Next week, in our final lesson, we will discuss text level semantics and pragmatics jointly. To get ready for this lesson, I will give you 14 short texts to read in the next subsection. To get to the next subsection of Lesson 11, Lesson 11.4: Stories for Next Week, please click here.
Updated last: 3/31/01
© Andreas Schramm and Hamline University