Beyond Time - Linguistics - University of California, Berkeley

Michaelis further notes that languages may vary as to the particular state selected by
the present. This allows for a progressive reading in many languages, since the progressive
may also be considered a state Despite possible differences in state selection, Michaelis
argues that “the aspectual-selection properties” are cross-linguistically invariant (Michaelis
2006:234). Totela, where change-of-state verbs select the phase prior to the resultant state
(recall (167) above), either provides a counter-example to this claim, or it is not a true
“present” under Michaelis’ analysis. 8 Since this debate could quickly become definitional, I
will not treat it at length here. There does not appear to be any restriction of -la- to stative
predicates. Interactions of -la- (and unmarked verbs) with situation type are related to the
situation’s event structure, and not to stativity. They are discussed in greater detail in 4.3.6
below.
Present forms interact significantly with aspect as well as situation type, and analyses
must draw conclusions about what – if any – aspectual contributions they make. Just as the
present (especially when unmarked morphologically) is often analyzed as un- or underspecified
for tense, some analyses treat it as unspecified for aspect; others conceive it as inherently
imperfective. Proponents of the present’s imperfectivity point to its typical interpretive possibilities:
In many languages, including Totela, present forms can have progressive readings,
as well as habitual and gnomic readings. Arguments for aspectual underspecification, on the
other hand, note that typical analyses of imperfective aspect (e.g. topic time fully included
in the situation time, as in Klein 1994) clash with futurate readings.
Comrie (1976) assumes aspectual underspecification, claiming that in many languages, at
least, the perfective-imperfective distinction is only seen in the past tense; Comrie’s proposed
system is schematized by Dahl as in figure 4.1.
pfv ipfv
past
Past Perfective
(“Aorist”)
Past Imperfective
(“Imperfect”)
present Present
Figure 4.1: The tripartite system of Comrie (1976), adapted from Dahl (1985:82)
An example of a language-specific analysis appealing to aspectual underspecification is
found in Klein (1994), who argues that the German Präsens is unspecified aspectually, and
that the lack of aspectual specification is what allows for the present and future readings
discussed above. Rather than aspect, Klein argues, typical interpretations are driven by
situation type. One-state situations (stage-level states and activities) typically have a
present meaning (‘Hans is sleeping’), while two-state situations are more often futurate
(‘Hans will come’). Klein explains this by positing that the Präsens may project topic time
into the single state of one-state situations (‘Hans is sleeping’), and the “source” state of
8 The -li- marker, transparently related to -li ‘be’ and co-occurring with stativizer -ite (see chapter 6) is
a better candidate for Michaelis’ state selector. -la- seems almost to be a “change selector”, selecting the
phase before the rest state. However, -la- may co-occur with true statives.
165