A. I . Genetic classification of languages cited
Table 6 gives a genetic classification of all the languages cited in the present book, including those only mentioned in passing. Some less well established genetic groupings (e.g. between Uralic and Turkic) have not been taken into account.
Table 6. Genet£c classification of languages dted
Indo-European Hittite Indo-Iranian
Indic : Sanskrit, Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi Iranian : Persian
Balto-Slavonic
Baltic : Lithuanian, Latvian (Lettish) Slavonic (Slavic)
South Slavonic : Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian), Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian
East Slavonic : Russian
West Slavonic : Czech, Polish, Upper Sorbian (Upper Lusatian, Upper Wendish)
Albanian
Hellenic : Ancient Greek, Modern Greek Italic
Latin
Romance : Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian Celtic : Irish, Scots Gaelic, Welsh
Germanic : Gothic, German, Dutch, English, Icelandic Uralic
Finno-U gric
Ugric : Hungarian, Vogul (Mansi)
Finno-Permic : Finnish, Estonian, Cheremis (Mari), Zyryan (Komi), Votyak (Udmurt)
Samoyedic : Nenets (Yurak Samoyed)
Table 6. Genetic classification of languages cited (cont.) Turkic : Turkish
South Caucasian (Kartvelian) : Georgian Semitic : Akkadian, Arabic
Sino-Tibetan : (Mandarin) Chinese Niger-Congo
Mande : Kpelle
Kwa : Fante (Akan), Yoruba, Igbo Bantu : Swahili, Shona, ChiBemba
A.2. Aspectual systems oC individual languages
The purpose of this section is to bring together, in summary form with bibliographical references, a description of the various aspects that have been discussed in different parts of this book, in those lan
guages which have formed the backbone of the material used in this book. The sections on English and the Slavonic languages Russian and Bulgarian are rather more detailed than the others, since English is the language familiar to all readers of this book, while the Slavonic languages have played an important role in the development of the study of aspect.
For fuller details, reference should be made to the appropriate sections of this book, and to the works listed below.
A.2. I . English
English has two aspectual oppositions that pervade the whole of the verbal system, that between Progressive (verb to be and verbal form in -ing) and non-Progressive, and that between Perfect (verb to have and Past Participle) and non-Perfect. With nonstative verbs the differ
ence between Progressive and non-Progressive is in general that between progressive and nonprogressive meaning. However, this formal opposi
tion is also found with stative verbs, in English, as opposed to many other languages with a similar opposition, and here the meaning dis
tinction is usually that between a temporally restricted state (Progres
sive) and a temporally unrestricted state (non-Progressive). The difference between Perfect and non-Perfect is that between perfect meaning and nonperfect meaning, although the Pluperfect and Future Perfect can also indicate relative time reference. In addition, in the Past Tense only, English has a separate Habitual, using the auxiliary used to ; this form is replaceable by the non-Habitual equivalent, i.e.
the non-Habitual does not exclude habitual meaning.
Language guide A recent handbook dealing with English aspect (and other verbal categories) from a practical rather than a theoretical viewpoint is Leech ( 1 97 1 ), which contains a bibliography. Recent key works in the develop
ment of the study of aspect in English include Ota ( 1 963), Joos (1964), Palm er ( 1 965), and AlIen ( 1 966). Particular attention has been attracted to the Progressive, which is lacking in many of the other major European languages. Schopf ( 1 974a) reprints a number of articles on the Progres
sive in English, viewed both synchronically and diachronically, as well as an original essay by the editor (Schopf 1 974b) on recent approaches to the analysis of the Progressive in English ; this reader also contains
a number of more general articles on aspect, and articles originally written in English are reprinted without being translated into German.
Other key works dealing exclusively or primarily with the Progressive are Hatcher ( 1 95 1), Nehls ( 1 974), and Scheffer ( 1 975).
A.2.2. Slavonic A.2.2. I . Russian
There is an aspectual OpposltlOn between Perfective and Imperfective. In general, simple verbs are Imperfective (e.g. pisat' ' write ') ; prefixed derivatives of simple verbs are Perfective (e.g.
napisat' ' write ', vypisat' ' copy out ') ; and suffixed derivatives of Perfective verbs are again Imperfective (e.g. vypisyvat' ' copy out').
The aspectual opposition exi.sts in the Past Tense. In the non-Past, there is a distinction in the Imperfective between Present and Future, the latter a periphrastic formation using budu with the Infinitive. There is only one non-Past Perfective form, which usually has future time reference, and is traditionally called the Perfective Future.
The fullest account of Russian aspect available in English is Forsyth ( 1970), with �ibliography. Those who read German should also consult Isacenko ( 1 962 : 347-4 1 8). A recent work in the native Russian tradition is Bondarko ( 1 97 1 ). Key contributions to the development of the analysis of Russian aspect include Mazon (1914) and Jakobson ( 1 932).
Bartschat ( 1974) is a discussion of some recent approaches to aspect in Russian and the other Slavonic languages.
A.2.2.2. Bulgarian
The aspectual system of Bulgarian is considerably more complex than that of Russian. In addition to the opposition between
Perfective (with perfective meaning) and Imperfective (with imperfec
tive meaning or neutral between perfective and imperfective meaning), there is an opposition in the Past Tense only between Imperfect and Aorist. The Imperfect has imperfective meaning and the Aorist has perfective meaning ; such combinations as Perfective Imperfect and Imperfective Aorist are possible, and either represent combinations of different submeanings of perfective and imperfective meaning, or, in the case of the Imperfective Aorist, can also represent the combination of perfective meaning (whence Aorist) with aspectually unspecified meaning (whence Imperfective). In addition, there is
a n opposition between Perfect and non-Perfect, in all tenses and
in both Perfective and Imperfective Aspect. There is a three
way tense distinction : Present/Past/Future, and each tense has both Perfective and Imperfective, both Perfect and non-Perfect forms.
The standard descriptive work is Maslov ( 1 959). A bibliography of the major works is given by Waiter ( 1 973 : 1 98) ; to this list one.might add Andrejczin ( 1 938), and Ivanova ( 1 974),
A.2.2.3 . Old Church Slavonic
For Old Church Slavonic, with an aspectual system similar to that of Bulgarian except for a less well developed Perfective/Imper
fective opposition, the classical treatment is Dostal ( 1954) ; for a more recent discussion, see Amse-de Jong ( 1 974).
A.2.3. Romance
A useful introduction to aspect in the Romance languages is Klein ( 1 974 : chapters 4, 5), with bibliography.
A.2.3 . I . French
In written French, there is a three-way formal distinction among the past tenses : Past Definite (with perfective meaning, e.g.
j' ecrivis ' I wrote '), Imperfect (with imperfective meaning, e.g. j' ecrivais ' I was writing, I used to write '), and Perfect (with perfect meaning, e.g.
j' ai ecrit ' I have written '). The opposition between Past Definite and Imperfect is restricted to the Past Tense, while there are Perfect forms for all tenses. Semantically this is not a three-way opposition, but rather two binary oppositions : perfective/non perfective and perfect/
nonperfect, although within the Perfect there is no overt expression of
Language guide the perfective/imperfective semantic distinction. In spoken French, the Past Definite is not used, and the Perfect (also called Compound Past) is used in both senses.
The standard treatment of the French verbal forms is Imbs ( 1960).
A recent theoretical treatment is Pollak ( 1 960), which also contains a review of earlier work on aspect in French and in Latin (chapter 11);
see also Garey ( 1 957), Harris ( 1 971).
A.2.3.2. Spanish
Spanish has the same formal distinctions as written French, although the semantic distinction between Simple Past (corresponding to the French Past Definite, e.g. escribi ' I wrote ') and Perfect (e.g.
he escrito ' I have written '), in particular, is somewhat different ; see Bull ( 1 963), Barrera-Vidal ( 1 972). In addition, Spanish has separate Progressive forms (e.g. estoy escribiendo ' I am writing ') with progressive meaning, while the equivalent non-Progressive forms (e.g. escribo ' I write ') do not exclude progressive meaning.
A.2.4. Greek
A.2.4. I . Ancient Greek
In addition to the opposition between Perfect (e.g. !eluka ' I have loosed ') and non-Perfect, Ancient Greek has, within the non
Perfect forms, an opposition between Aorist (e.g. eZUsa ' I loosed ') and non-Aorist (e.g. Imperfect eluon ' I was loosing, I used to loose '). In the Indicative Mood, the Aorist is essentially a Past Tensf!, and this particular aspectual distinction does not exist in the other tenses ; in the other moods and in nonfinite forms, the distinction between Aorist and non-Aorist is purely aspectual (perfective versus imperfective meaning).
A traditional description of the Ancient Greek verbal forms is Goodwin ( 1 889). For more recent discussions, see Holt ( 1 943), Lyons ( 1 963 : 1 1 1-19), and Friedrich ( 1974),
A.2.4.2. Modern Greek
Modern Greek has a Perfective/Imperfective OpposltlOn running through all tenses, moods, and nonfinite forms. In addition, within the Perfective, there are distinct Perfect forms. For the forms and their meanings, see Sciler ( 1 952).
A.2.5. Chinese (Mandarin)
Chinese has a number of verbal suffixes with aspectual, or combined aspectual and temporal, value, for instance Progressive -zhe, Perfective -le (the latter combining perfective meaning and relative past time reference). For the use of these particles, see Jaxontov (1957). For those who do not read Russian, Chao ( 1 968), though oriented towards the formal distinctions rather than their meanings, also gives useful indications of the meanings of the various suffixes.
A.2.6. Other languages
The following should also be of interest, even to readers not familiar with the languages described, from the viewpoint of the general theory of aspect.
Although Turkish has not been discussed in detail in this book, there is a rather rich literature on aspect in Turkish, a recent work being Johanson ( 1 971), with bibliography. For a comparison of aspect in Slavonic languages and in Turkish, see Koschmieder ( 1953).
The Bantu language with the richest set of tense and aspect opposi
tions seems to be ChiBemba, described in Givon ( 1 972 : chapter 4, especially pp. 1 74-9 and 206-13).
APPE N D I X B