Communications in Humanities Research ISSN: 2753-7072
Home> Volumes> Volume CHR Vol.3> Article
Research Article

A Typological Approach to Imperfect: Encoding Types and Semantic Features

Xiuyi WuCollege of Foreign Studies, Jinan University, Guangzhou, 511400, China* Haoran MaCollege of Foreign Studies, Jinan University, Guangzhou, 511400, China

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

Imperfect was first referred to in the linguistic field quite a long time ago as a special combination of tense and aspect. However, it has long been regarded as subordinate to Imperfective and to exist merely in some Romance, Latin, Greek, Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavonic languages, thus receiving little specialized research. To conduct a thorough and detailed analysis of Imperfect, the present study established 105 language samples across the world. The imperfect meaning, with different encoding devices, is found in most language samples around the world. Based on the typological classification of their encoding types, the semantic features of Imperfect are then discussed to provide a better comprehension of the universals and characteristics of the types. This multi-dimensional research attempts to call attention to this underestimated concept in linguistic research into tense and aspect, and to provide the research of Imperfect with a rationale in expectation of more systematic studies of Imperfect in the future.

Keywords: Encoding Types; Imperfect; Typology; Semantic Features
Published: May 17, 2023
DOI: 10.54254/2753-7064/3/20220237
Volume: CHR Vol.3
pp. 140-149
Download PDF

References

  1. Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Dahl, Ö. (1985). Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell.
  3. Saeed, J. (2009). Semantics (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
  4. Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Macmillan.
  5. Vendler, Z. (1967). Verbs and Times. In Linguistics in Philosophy, New York: Cornell University Press, 97-121.
  6. Smith, C. S. (1991). The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  7. Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Bell, A. (1978). Language Samples. In J. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson, and E. A. Moravcsik (eds), Universals of Human Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 123-56.
  9. Dryer, M. (1992). The Greenbergian Word Order Correlations. In Language, 68, 81-138. https://www.jstor.org/stable/416370
  10. Bickel, B. & Nichols, J. (2013). Exponence of Selected Inflectional Formatives. In Dryer, M. & Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. https://wals.info/chapter/21
  11. Noonan, M. (1992). A Grammar of Lango. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter
  12. Chung, S. (2020). Chamorro Grammar. Santa Cruz: University of California. http://dx.doi.org/10.48330/E2159R
  13. Boneh, N. (2013). Tense: Modern Hebrew. In Khan, G. (eds), Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Leiden: Brill. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2212-4241_ehll_EHLL_COM_00000135
  14. Sneddon, J. N. (1996). Indonesian: A Comprehensive Grammar. London/New York: Routledge.
  15. Koul, O. (2008). Modern Hindi Grammar. Springfield: Dunwoody Press.
  16. Bhat, D.N.S. (1999). The Prominence of Tense, Aspect and Mood. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  17. Nichols, J. (2011). Ingush Grammar. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.
  18. Hopper, P. J. (1979). Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In T. Givón (ed.), Discourse and Syntax, Vol. 12. New York: Academic Press, 213-241.
  19. Peyronel, S. & Higgins, L. (2006). Basic Italian: A Grammar and Workbook. London & New York: Routledge.
  20. Hutchinson, A. & Lloyd, J. (1996). Portuguese: An Essential Grammar. London & New York: Routledge.
  21. Chirikba, A. (2003). Abkhaz Grammar. München: Lincom GmbH.