A binary approach to Spanish tense and aspect: on the tense battle about the past

Abstract

ABSTRACT. The present paper aims at accounting for the Spanish Imperfecto, Perfecto, Pluscuamperfecto and the Indefinido by applying three binary tense oppositions: Present vs Past, Synchronous vs Posterior and Imperfect(ive) vs Perfect(ive). For the sixteen Spanish tense forms under analysis a binary approach leads to covering twelve of them. Their relation with the preterital forms outside the range of the three oppositions is accounted for by two surgical operations: (a) the notion of Imperfect(ive) is severed from the notion of ongoing progress by restricting it to underinformation about completion and by seeing continuous tense forms as involving a more complex semantics; (b) the notion of (non-)stative is strictly severed from interference of information coming from the arguments of a verb. These theoretical moves make the way free for a formal-semantic insight into the interaction of Spanish tense and aspect. It also paves the way for a principled distinction between completion and anteriority. Restricted to tense forms pertaining to the past, our analysis sheds light on the struggle for survival of tense forms outside the binary system. Keywords: tense, aspect, perfecto, pluscuamperfecto, imperfecto, indefinido, completion, aorist, anteriority, stative, nonstative, discrete, continuous, progressive, terminative, durative RESUMEN. El presente trabajo pretende describir y explicar las siguientes formas verbales del castellano: Imperfecto, Perfecto, Pluscuamperfecto e Indefinido aplicando tres oposiciones temporales binarias: Presente vs Pasado, Sincrónico vs Posterior e Imperfecto/imperfectivo vs Perfecto/perfectivo. Este acercamiento binario cubre doce de las dieciséis formas temporales del castellano analizadas. La relación entre las formas verbales que entran en el sistema binario y las formas de pretérito que no entran en el sistema se explica por dos operaciones quirúrgicas: (a) la noción de Imperfecto/imperfectivo se separa de la noción de progresivo continuo, restringiendo el valor del Imperfecto/imperfectivo a la subinformación sobre su terminación e implicando una semántica más compleja para las formas temporales progresivas; (b) la noción de (no) estatividad está estrictamente separada de la interferencia de la información aspectual procedente de los argumentos de un verbo. Estos movimientos teóricos dan vía libre a una comprensión formal-semántica de la interacción del tiempo y del aspecto en castellano. También allana el camino para una distinción argumentada entre las nociones de terminación y anterioridad. Limitado a formas verbales del pasado, nuestro análisis ilumina la batalla por la supervivencia de las formas temporales fuera del sistema binario.

The microvariation of the Spanish perfect in three varieties

“…We have shown that it is being used in flawless perfect readings (like for example resultative and relevance of the present contexts). As González and Verkuyl (2017) argue, "it is simply occupying the place of the Perf tense form by taking over its role in the binary system" (2017:133). But there is also variation within the Latin American dialects.…”

“…The original construction habere + Participle in Classical Latin initiated a grammaticalization process in Vulgar Latin, and gained new meanings in Romance Languages. González and Verkuyl (2017) discuss the difference between the Spanish Pret canté as a tense form derived from the synthetic Latin Present Perfect cantavi, and the form he cantado as an analytical form which developed from habeo cantatum. These long-term processes that took place in Romance languages have been extensively studied by Harris (1982), Pinkster (1987), Salvi (1987), Bichakjian (1988), Vincent (1988), Schwegler (1990), Ledgeway (2012) and Cennamo (2018), among others.…”

“…In other words, Table 1 allows us to see the tense forms of Spanish as all belonging to one same system, with one outsider: the Pret. González and Verkuyl (2017) hypothesise on why the PP and Pret are both used for the same meanings in different Spanish dialects. They both follow their own grammaticalization paths, which do not need to be equal in all dialects, as it will be shown in this study with the help of three Spanish varieties.…”

“…The PP and the Pret share the temporal semantic feature that the time of the event precedes the utterance time; but they differ in that the reference time in the Pret is aligned with the event time, whereas in the PP is aligned with the speech time (Howe 2013: 22). From the point of view of formal semantics, the semantic differentiation between these two tenses is that the PP conveys completion while the Pret marks anteriority not related to the present but related to some point of reference in the past, aorist-like (Verkuyl 1999, González 2003, González and Verkuyl 2017.…”

Inherent Aspect and L1 Transfer in the L2 Acquisition of Spanish Grammatical Aspect

“…Moreover, this study shows how important it is to include the Present Perfect data in future research. The Present Perfect form is taking over perfective meanings in many languages (González & Verkuyl, 2017) and as a 'new Preterit' it needs to be included in any study investigating the use of past tenses. Its inclusion is even more important for languages such as Dutch and Spanish, where the Present Perfect is advancing in its grammaticalization path toward past tense meanings (Bybee, 1994;González & Verkuyl, 2017;Schwenter, 1994).…”