This post continues a series that provides an introduction to markedness theory in preparation for its application to a description of the historical present in the gospel of Mark. The first post described the basic organizational framework provided by an asymmetrical view of markedness. The approach allows complex sets of data to be broken down into simpler sets of relations. The second post covered the importance of differentiating marked from unmarked, whereby the unmarked or “default” form becomes the basis for describing the other forms. Based on the focus of the historical present, most of the discussion will be focused on the indicative mood.

Based on its simplicity and its frequency, the aorist was selected as the unmarked or default form around which this asymmetrical explanation of the verb forms is organized.  Saying it is the default means that it serves as the canon against which the other forms will be described.The aorist is unmarked for imperfectivity. Imperfectivity may or may not be present, nothing in the form signals whether it is present or not. It is for this reason that so many different senses are attributed to the aorist by Greek grammarians. It portrays the action as an undifferentiated whole, nothing more. If the writer had wanted to draw attention to the imperfective nature of an action, i.e. to explicitly mark this feature as present, he would need to use a form (or some other adverbial modifier) that explicitly marks it. In Koine, this verb form would be the imperfect or present. Both explicitly mark imperfectivity.

If the aorist is the unmarked member of the set, we need to explain what is marked by the other forms in order to differentiate them from the aorist and from each other. I noted that the aorist is generally viewed as expressing perfective aspect, viewing the action as an undifferentiated whole. In contrast, the present and imperfect forms are typically described as expressing imperfective aspect, viewing the action as ongoing or incomplete. In this way, the present and imperfect can be meaningfully differentiated from the aorist as “+ imperfective”. I cited some examples from Wallace under the heading of “ingressive aorist” where actions that are understood to be incomplete are portrayed as an undifferentiated whole (other factors in the context might lead one to the exegetical conclusion that the action is ingressive, not the verb form itself.) This potentially ingressive usage is consistent with the idea of being “unmarked” for the feature “imperfective”. It may or may not be present. In contrast, use of the present or imperfect both explicitly mark the presence of this feature.

The next question concerns how to differentiate the imperfect form from the present form. What does each form uniquely mark? This is where the food fight typically begins and you need to call the principal in to break it up. You may not have noticed, but there has been a sizable amount of discussion about whether Koine Greek is a tense-based language, like English, or whether it is aspect-based. The work of McKay, Porter, Decker and Campbell have convincingly proven that it is not tense-based, in the way that English is. However, based on the arguments posed, and my understanding from the broader linguistic literature, I remain unconvinced that Greek lacks any kind of temporal meaning in the verb forms. Indeed, it is not tense-based like English. But tense and aspect form a continuum, not a binary opposition.1 Showing that Greek is not tense-prominent like English does not eliminate the presence of tense in the verb forms. To be sure, Greek is aspect-prominent, but the question of how much tense-making is present (no pun intended) remains an open one. Showing that a tense-prominent explanation is untenable is insufficient to prove that tense is not expressed in Greek verb forms.

It is not my goal (though it will likely end up happening) to enter into the broader food fight about the tense-aspect issue. In the name of full and honest disclosure in keeping with the incoming Obama administration, I wanted you to know where I stand on the issue.2 Regardless of which side of this debate you find yourself on, I will be an equal-opportunity grammarian and respect both sides of the fence. Based on the aspect-only data, this will not be difficult to do in differentiating the imperfect from the present. If there is any form in the Greek language that has some kind of tense marking, it is the present/imperfect opposition. Based on the distributional data, I view the primary difference between these forms to be one of tense. The aspect-only folks also see a clear distributional distinction between these forms, but they describe it in terms of “remoteness” or “proximity”, where this is not explicitly in reference to temporal remoteness or proximity. Whether you call it tense or remoteness/proximity, this is the opposition that I will be focusing on. We need not agree on the nature of the differentiation, we need only agree that there is a differentiation.

I mentioned in the markedness and nesting post that one can take a set that is marked for something, and sub-divide it further into a more fine-grained analysis. The members of a highest or super set can be sub-divided. Just as in the super-set, one selects the most basic form or usage as the default for the new set. However, it is the default for the sub-set only, not the super set. One then considers how the other forms or usage differ from the default. The asymmetrical approach is a powerful tool. This sub-division and categorization is where we are heading with the description of the present usage. Some descriptions of the present form have sought to capture all of the data (including the historical) into a single lexical meaning of the form. If one includes the historical present data in this description, in my opinion,  it will obscure the core lexical meaning of the form. The key to proper and accurate descriptions is finding the most meaningful groupings for the data. If two meaningful groups are mingled together, it will muddle the accuracy of the description.

If the historical present is truly a marked usage of the present, if it is really meant to stand out from the default usage because of how it breaks from the expected core meaning associated with the form, then it must be handled on this basis–as exceptional usage and not as core usage. If one indeed breaks out the historical usage in their description of the present, it will dramatically affect the core meaning that one derives from the data. It is not a question of whether the holistic description is right or wrong. The key question is which description more accurately captures the core meaning expressed by the form. I contend that excluding the historical usage as exceptional (read marked) allows one to more accurately ascertain the core meaning associated with the present form. If the historical present really fit closely with this hypothetical core meaning, then it would not have stood out as exception over the centuries. And remember, to call something marked in the asymmetrical approach is not to say it is the least frequently occurring form. According to Decker’s stats on the present usage in Mark, the historical (134x) rivals the present/proximate/non-remote (152x).3

Alas, I am getting ahead of myself. Please grant me one more post to develop this idea before assailing me. I will be treating the historical present as a marked use of the form, meant to stand out from the expected pattern. I will argue that it stands out on the basis of both tense and aspect4 For the aspect-only folks,I would say that the HP stands out on the basis of remoteness/proximity and aspect. Again, we need not agree whether there is tense or not to move forward in this discussion. If you want to rant about the lunacy of my viewing any tense being present (pun intended), do it at home on your own blog. I, your benevolent dictator, will police the comments on this one rather closely. It is not personal, just business.  Stay tuned for more.

Isn’t markedness wonderful?

  1. Cf. D.N.S. Bhat, The prominence of tense, aspect and mood (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999) for a very helpful discussion of this matter, particularly the chapter on tense-prominent languages. [↩]
  2. I have also paid all of my taxes. No untaxed limo rides for me! [↩]
  3. Decker, Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of  Mark with Reference to Verbal Aspect, 99. [↩]
  4. Kudos to Randall Buth for pointing this out. Thanks Randy. [↩]