Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa 2: 119–27. Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. That’s that. The Hague: Mouton. Bolinger, Dwight. 1974. Concept and percept, two infinitive constructions and their vi- cissitudes. In Working papers in phonetics: Festschrift for Dr. Onishi’s Kiju 65–91. Tokyo: Phonetic Society of Japan. Borkin, Ann. 1973. To be or not to be. Chicago Linguistic Society 9: 44–56. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Cristofaro, Sonia. 1998. Subordination strategies: A typological study. PhD dissertation, University of Pavia. Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Delbecque, Nicole. 2000. Cognitive constraints on complement clause cliticization in Spanish. In Kaoru Horie, ed., Complementation: Cognitive and functional perspectives 149–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dirven, Rene ´ . 1989. A cognitive perspective on complementation. In Dany Jaspers, Yvan Putseys, Wim Klooster, and Pieter Seuren, eds., Sentential complementation and the lexicon: Studies in honor of Wim de Geest 113–39. Dordrecht: Foris. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1984. The semantic basis of syntactic properties. Berkeley Linguistics Society 10: 583–95. Duffley, Patrick. 1999. The use of the infinitive and the -ing after verbs denoting the beginning, middle and end of an event. Folia Linguistica 33: 295–331. Englebretson, Robert. 2003. Searching for structure: The problem of complementation in colloquial Indonesian Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Farkas, Donka. 1992. On obviation. In Ivan Sag and Anna Szabolcsi, eds., Lexical matters 85–109. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1991. The de dicto domain in language. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine, eds., Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1, Focus on theoretical and methodological issues 219–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, and Robert Jasperson. 1991. That-clauses and other complements. Lingua 83: 133–53. Givo ´ n, Talmy. 1980. The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language 4: 333–77. Givo ´ n, Talmy. 1990. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Givo ´ n, Talmy. 1995. Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haiman, John. 1985. Natural syntax: Iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Hooper, Joan. 1975. On assertive predicates. In John Kimball, ed., Syntax and Semantics 4: 91–124. New York: Academic Press. Horie, Kaoru. 1993. A cross-linguistic study of perception and cognition verb comple- ments: A cognitive perspective. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California. Horie, Kaoru. 2000. Complementation in Japanese and Korean. In Kaoru Horie, ed., Complementation: Cognitive and functional perspectives 11–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jespersen, Otto. 1909–42. A modern English grammar on historical principles. 6 vols. London: George Allen and Unwin. Josephs, Lewis. 1976. Complementation. In Masayoshi Shibatani, ed., Syntax and semantics, vol. 3, Japanese generative grammar 307–70. New York: Academic Press. Karttunen, Lauri. 1971. Implicative verbs. Language 47: 340–58. 800 michel achard Kemmer, Suzanne, and Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot. 1995. The semantics of ‘‘empty prepo- sitions’’ in French. In Eugene H. Casad, ed., Cognitive linguistics in the Redwoods 347–88. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kemmer, Suzanne, and Arie Verhagen. 1994. The grammar of causatives and the con- ceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics 5: 115–56. Kiparsky, Paul, and Carol Kiparsky. 1970. Fact. In Manfred Bierwisch and Karl E. Heidolph, eds., Progress in linguistics 143–73. The Hague: Mouton. Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1985. Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In John Haiman, ed., Iconicity in syntax 109–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar . Vol. l, Theoretical pre- requisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1: 5–38. Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2, Descriptive appli- cation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 1–38. Langacker, Ronald W. 1995. Raising and transparency. Language 71: 1–62. Langacker, Ronald W. 2002. The control cycle: Why grammar is a matter of life and death. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association 2: 193–220. Newman, John. 1981. The semantics of raising constructions. PhD dissertation, University of California at San Diego. Ney, James. 1981. Semantic structures for the syntax of complements and auxiliaries in English. The Hague: Mouton. Noonan, Michael. 1985. Complementation. In Timothy Shopen, ed., Language typology and syntactic description 2: 42–140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Polinsky, Maria. 2000. Variation in complementation constructions: Long-distance agreement in Tsez. In Kaoru Horie, ed., Complementation: Cognitive and functional perspectives 59–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rosenbaum, Peter. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ruwet, Nicolas. 1983. Monte ´ e et contr ^ oole: Une question a ` revoir? In Michael Herslund, Ole Mørdrup, and Finn Sørensen, eds., Analyses Grammaticales du Franc¸ais: E ´ tudes pub- lie ´ es a ` l’occasion du 50e anniversaire de Carl Vikner 17–37. Copenhagen: I kommission hos Akademisk forlag. Ruwet, Nicolas. 1984. Je veux partir/*Je veux que je parte. A propos de la distribution des comple ´ tives a ` temps fini et des comple ´ ments a ` l’infinitif en Franc¸ais. Cahiers de Grammaire 7 : 75–138. Ruwet, Nicolas. 1991. Syntax and human experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Smith, Michael B. 1985. An analysis of German dummy subject construction in cognitive grammar. In Scott DeLancey and Russell S. Tomlin, eds., Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Pacific Linguistics Conference 412–25. Eugene: University of Oregon, Department of Linguistics. Smith, Michael B., and Joyce Escobedo. 2001. The semantics of English to-infinitival vs. -ing verb complement constructions. Chicago Linguistic Society 37: 549–63. Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2001. Constructing causation: A construction grammar approach to analytic causatives. PhD dissertation, Rice University. Suzuki, Satoko. 1996. Incorporation of information and complementizers in Japanese. Pragmatics 6: 511–51. complementation 801 Suzuki, Satoko. 2000. De dicto complementation in Japanese. In Kaoru Horie, ed., Complementation: Cognitive and functional perspectives 33–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Talmy, Leonard. 1975. Semantics and syntax of motion. In John P. Kimball, ed., Syntax and semantics 4: 181–238. New York: Academic Press. Talmy, Leonard. 1976. Semantic causative types. In Masayoshi Shibatani, ed., Syntax and semantics, vol. 6, The grammar of causative constructions 43–116. New York: Ac- ademic Press. Talmy, Leonard. 1983. How language structures space. In Herbert L. Pick, Jr., and Linda Acredolo, eds., Spatial orientation: Theory, research and application 225–82. New York: Plenum Press. Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12: 49–100. Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. ‘‘Objects complements’’ and conversation towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26: 125–64. Verspoor, Marjolijn. 1999. To infinitives. In Leon de Stadler, ed., Issues in cognitive lin- guistics 505–26. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Verspoor, Marjolijn. 2000. Iconicity in English complement constructions. In Kaoru Horie, ed., Complementation: Cognitive and functional perspectives 199–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wood, Frederick. 1956. Gerund versus infinitive. English Language Teaching 11: 11–16. 802 michel achard chapter 31 TENSE AND ASPECT ronny boogaart and theo janssen 1. Introduction When using a tensed clause, the speaker indicates that the situation 1 described in the clause relates to an evaluative situation (usually the speech situation) 2 and how the situation described relates to the evaluative situation. By indicating the relationship between the situation described and the evaluative situation, the speaker contex- tualizes the situation described into the current discourse. 3 In view of its contex- tualizing function, tense is called a deictic or grounding category. The evaluative situation functions as the deictic center, vantage point, or ground (defined by Langacker as the speech event, its participants, and its setting; Langacker 1987, 1994) to which the situation described is related. The aspectual information in a clause provides information on how the lan- guage user conceives of the internal temporal constituency of the situation de- scribed in that clause (Comrie 1976). In using aspect, the language user indicates whether this situation is construed as either bounded or unbounded. Since aspect does not serve to link the situation externally to the evaluative situation, aspect is not considered a deictic or grounding category. In the absence of tense marking, however, aspect can have a deictic effect (see section 3.1). This chapter will address the description of tense (section 2) and aspect (section 3) separately, with the relation between tense and aspect being discussed in section 3.1. In sections 2 and 3, we will present the principal issues of tense and aspect as they are discussed in the traditional literature. We will then consider the specific contribution of Cognitive Linguistics in these areas. General cognitive linguistic issues addressed here in particular are the symbolic nature of tense and aspect, that is, as representing pairings of form and meaning, and the idea that meaning can be identified with conceptualization. The chapter will conclude with some remarks on future research into tense and aspect phenomena (section 4). 2. Tense First, we will deal with the question of which elements can be considered to be tense forms (section 2.1) and subsequently what meaning these forms signal and how they do it (section 2.2). 2.1. Form Tense forms, which are usually understood as denoting temporal relations in- volving the referential categories of past, present, and future, are formally different across languages. Some tense forms belong to a morphological category comprising single, finite verb forms; other tense forms are clusters of finite, auxiliary verb forms and one or more nonfinite verb forms. It is only due to their notional and func- tional coherence that formally different categories can be assumed to constitute a single linguistic system. The most influential account of a time-based morphosyntactic system of tenses is the analysis proposed by Reichenbach (1947). Reichenbach proposed a system of nine tenses, each encoding a temporal relation of the time of the event (e) with respect to the point of reference (r) and a temporal relation of the point of reference (r) with respect to the time of speech (s). Both e and r and r and s may enter into relations of coincidence and precedence, as is shown in table 31.1. Table 31.1. Tense forms according to Reichenbach’s tense analysis (xÀy stands for ‘x precedes y’ x ¼ y stands for ‘x and y coincide’) Anterior (EÀR) Simple (E ¼ R) Posterior (RÀE) PAST (RÀS) ANTERIOR PAST had left SIMPLE PAST left POSTERIOR PAST would leave PRESENT (S ¼ R) ANTERIOR PRESENT has left SIMPLE PRESENT leaves POSTERIOR PRESENT will leave FUTURE (SÀR) ANTERIOR FUTURE will have left SIMPLE FUTURE will leave POSTERIOR FUTURE will be going to leave 804 ronny boogaart and theo janssen The temporal relations in table 31.1 can be illustrated with Reichenbach’s (1947: 293) examples (1) and (2). (1) I did not know that you would be here. Clause 1 : I did not know e 1 ¼ r 1 – s Clause 2 : (that) you would be here r 2 – e 2 ¼ s The characterization of clause 1 , expressed as e¼r–s, and the characterization of clause 2 , expressed as r–e¼s, indicate that both clauses share the time of speech as well as the point of reference; furthermore, the time of the event in clause 1 precedes the time of the event in clause 2 . Reichenbach’s example (2) illustrates the temporal relation between a clause in the anterior past and two clauses in the simple past. (2) I had mailed the letter when John came and told me the news. Clause 1 : I had mailed the letter e 1 – r 1 – s Clause 2 : John came e 2 ¼ r 2 – s Clause 3 : [John] told me the news e 3 ¼ r 3 – s Clause 1 shares s and r with clause 2 and clause 3 . As the diagram of sentence (2) shows, the situations of clause 2 and clause 3 occur when the situation in clause 1 has ended. However, sentence (2) can be interpreted in two ways: in one interpretation, there is an interval of time between the time at which the speaker finished mailing the letter (e 1 ) and the time at which John came (e 2 ); in the more likely interpretation, there is also a time interval between the time at which John came (e 2 ¼r 2 ) and the time at which he told the speaker the news (e 3 ¼r 3 ). Because of the time gap between r 2 and r 3 , r cannot represent a temporal point; however, if r represents a stretch of time, another problem arises, since r 2 and r 3 in (2) do not share one single stretch of time. Regardless of how it is defined, the notion of ‘‘point of reference,’’ or rather ‘‘time of reference,’’ is the most controversial issue of Reichenbach’s tense analysis. 4 Two of Reichenbach’s tense characterizations allow for more than one tem- poral structure. The posterior past, as exemplified in clause 2 in (1), is character- ized as r–e¼s, but it can also be characterized as r–e–s ([I did not know that] you would be there yesterday)orasr–s–e ([I did not know that] you would be there tomorrow). The anterior future (will have left) can be characterized as e–s–r, e¼s– r, and s–e–r. Furthermore, Reichenbach does not provide a characterization of the conditional perfect (past future perfect), such as would have left. Possible combi- nations are e–r 1 (the left time relates to the have time),r 1 –r 2 (the have time relates to the would time), and r 2 –s (the would time relates to the speech time) (Comrie 1981: 27; 1985: 76–77). tense and aspect 805 Form/meaning-oriented approaches to the English tenses only assume two types of tense form: the present-tense forms (e.g., leaves) and the past-tense forms (e.g., left). Since the so-called complex tenses are understood as sponging on their finite auxiliaries, they are not considered tense forms as such. 5 In the next section, we will see that Reichenbach’s two temporal dimensions (the relation of e with r and the relation of r with s), in which r is the cardinal point, also serve in most of the analyses in which the tense system is reduced to the present and past tense. And even those tense analyses which are not based on the notion of time can be assumed to have a two-dimensional quality in order for us to understand the role of tense in the contextualization of the situation de- scribed. We will now turn to the two-dimensionality of tense within Cognitive Linguistics, and discuss the status of the various notions proposed as alternates for the Reichenbachian time of reference. 2.2 Meaning In Cognitive Linguistics, some scholars analyze tense as based on time (Paprotte ´ 1988; Taylor 1989; Dinsmore 1991; Cutrer 1994; Harder 1996; Michaelis 1998; Lan- gacker 2001b; Wada 2001), whereas others consider time to be epiphenomenal in the analysis of tense (Langacker 1978; Janssen 1987; Brisard 1999). 6 We will first discuss the time-based analyses by Cutrer (1994) and Harder (1996) and then turn to a number of analyses that reject time as a necessary notion for the analysis of tense. With regard to both types of tense analysis, we will focus on the notions proposed as alternatives to Reichenbach’s r. 2.2.1. Tense Analyses Based on Time Cutrer (1994) analyzes tense within the framework of mental space theory: as such, she uses the descriptive concepts of ‘‘Base space’’ (Fauconnier 1985), ‘‘Viewpoint space’’ (Sweetser and Fauconnier 1996: 12–16), ‘‘Focus space’’ (Dinsmore 1991), ‘‘Event space’’ (Cutrer 1994: 71–75), and the distinction between fact and pre- diction (Cutrer 1994: 22 , 156, 171; see also King 1983: 115). She proposes ‘‘charac- terizations of a set of putatively universal tense-aspect categories: {present, past, future, perfect, progressive, imperfective, perfective},’’ whereby ‘‘each tense-aspect category is a universal type of discourse link between spaces’’ (Cutrer 1994: 22). The way she describes, for instance, the categories present and past is shown in (3) and (4) and graphically represented in figures 31.1 and 31.2 (Cutrer 1994: 88–89; Fauconnier 1997: 75–76). 7 (3) present applied to space M indicates that: a. M is in focus, b. M or M’s parent space is viewpoint, c. the time frame represented in M is not prior to viewpoint/base, and d. events or properties represented in M are facts. 806 ronny boogaart and theo janssen (4) past applied to space N indicates that: a. N is in focus, b. N’s parent space is viewpoint, c. N’s time is prior to viewpoint, and d. events or properties represented in N are fact (from viewpoint). In figure 31.1, space M (not prior to the base space) comprises the Viewpoint space, the Focus space, and the Event space. In figure 31.2, space N comprises the Focus space and the Event space. The concepts of Viewpoint space, Focus space, and Event space resemble Reichenbach’s s, r, and e, respectively. The fact-prediction dichotomy serves to distinguish between posterior events, which are presented as (scheduled) facts, and posterior events, which are presented as being predictions (Cutrer 1994: 22, 156–62, 171–79). Harder’s (1996: 326) time-based analysis assumes two deictic tenses, the pres- ent and past, and six relational tenses inside the scope of the present and past, as is illustrated in the structure in (5). (5) ‘past’/‘present’ (þ/–‘future’ (þ/–‘perfect’ (state-of-affairs))) Within the framework of his functional-interactive semantics, Harder describes the meanings of the present and past tense as in (6) and (7), where the ‘‘points-of- application’’ S and P ‘‘denote directions-of-pointing, not actual times’’ (Harder 1996: 327–28). (6) The meaning of the present tense is to direct the addressee to identify a point-of-application S (a situation as it is at the time S of speech) as that which the state-of-affairs in its scope applies to. (7) The meaning of the past tense is to direct the addressee to identify a point- of-application P (a situation as it is at time P (such that P lies before S)) as that which the state-of-affairs in its scope applies to. Harder (1996: 328) adds to these characterizations, stating that ‘‘both deictic tenses point from the ‘basis time’, i.e., utterance time, toward a ‘function time,’ ’’ that is, a point-of-application. Thus, both points-of-application can be considered Figure 31.1. present tense tense and aspect 807 to be analogical to the Reichenbachian time of reference (see also Harder 1996: 342, 404). In order to account for various modal uses of the past tense, Harder (1996: 344) characterizes P as ‘‘a non-actual point of application P*.’’ 2.2.2. Tense Analyses Not Based on Time The relevance of a nontemporal approach to tense arises from a series of descrip- tive problems which cannot be accounted for by an analysis based on the notion of time. First, there are problems such as the temporal relation between the rsin Reichenbach’s sentence (2). Second, in many languages the past-tense forms apply to nonpast situations. And third, present-tense forms may apply to past or future situations. Reichenbach’s sentence (2), I had mailed the letter when John came and told me the news, can be interpreted as follows: there is an interval of time between the time at which the speaker finished the mailing of the letter and the time at which John came and also between the time at which John came and the time at which he told the speaker the news. Since the rs of the situations involved do not share one single point or stretch of time, the question is how the obvious connection of the situ- ations involved can adequately be accounted for within a time-based framework. 8 In many (non-)Indo-European languages, past-tense forms can be used to indicate nonpast situations; witness (8)–(15). 9 (8) It is time we had a holiday. (Leech 1987: 14) (9) Would you like some peas? (Leech 1987: 119) (10) If I had time, I would write to you. (Fleischman 1989 : 5) (11) Si j’ avais le temps, je t’ eecrirais. If I have.pst the time I you write.futpst ‘If I had time, I would write to you.’ (Fleischman 1989: 5) (12) Si tuviera tiempo, te escribirı ´ a. If I have.pstsubj time you write.futpst ‘If I had time, I would write to you.’ (Fleischman 1989: 5) Figure 31.2. past tense 808 ronny boogaart and theo janssen (13) Desiderava? wanted.you ‘What did you want?’ (/‘May I help you?’) (Bazanella 1990: 444) (14) Ik vertrok graag morgen. I left with.pleasure tomorrow ‘I would like to leave tomorrow.’ (Janssen 1994: 122) (15) Nou, maar ik vertrok morgen! Well but I left tomorrow ‘Well, but I left (was supposed to leave) tomorrow!’ (Janssen 1994: 122) Furthermore, present-tense forms can be used to indicate nonpresent situations. 10 Let us first consider past situations encoded by present-tense form, as in (16)–(20). (16) Ex-champ dies. (headline reporting the death of a former boxer; Leech 1987: 12) (17) A man holds portraits of his relatives Saturday at Babi Yar. (photo- graphic caption, Washington Post, 7 October 1991; see also Leech 1987: 12; Langacker 2001a: 270) 11 (18) John tells me you’re getting a new car. (Leech 1987: 11) (19) Fred, iemand vraagt naar je. Kom je even? Fred someone ask.prs for you come you just ‘Fred, somebody is asking for you. Will you come here for a minute?’ (20) Paul: Huh! [Pause] Huh! [Pause] Huh! [Jamie grabs the paper and reads it] Jamie: Huh! Paul: That’s all I’m saying. (in a sitcom, Paul is reading a paper and Jamie is working nearby) (21) Gisteravond vertrok je morgen en nu vertrek je last.night left you tomorrow and now leave.prs you overmorgen! Wat moet ik nu geloven? the.day.after.tomorrow what must I now believe ‘Last night you were leaving tomorrow and now you are leaving the day after tomorrow! What am I supposed to believe?’ (Janssen 1994: 122; also Huddleston 1969: 787) Example (17) is noteworthy in that it shows seemingly opposite deictics: the present-tense form goes together with an adverbial indicating a past interval of time. In (18)–(20), the telling, asking, and saying (which are in the past) do not even partly overlap with the (present) time of speech. Here, the use of the present tense can be explained by the fact that it indicates a past action with an ongoing effect in the current communicative situation (Leech 1987: 11). Still, this does not alter the fact that the action took place in the past. Such discrepancies cannot be accounted for coherently in exclusively temporal terms. From a time-based tense perspective, the situations referred to must be temporally related to the time of speech. From a tense and aspect 809 . a temporal relation of the time of the event (e) with respect to the point of reference (r) and a temporal relation of the point of reference (r) with respect to the time of speech (s). Both. principal issues of tense and aspect as they are discussed in the traditional literature. We will then consider the specific contribution of Cognitive Linguistics in these areas. General cognitive linguistic issues. to the two-dimensionality of tense within Cognitive Linguistics, and discuss the status of the various notions proposed as alternates for the Reichenbachian time of reference. 2.2 Meaning In Cognitive