Comments on: Markedness summary for the Historical present http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/markedness-summary-for-the-historical-present/ Removing the mystery from discourse grammar Sun, 18 Jul 2010 23:43:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Steve Runge http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/markedness-summary-for-the-historical-present/comment-page-1/#comment-312 Steve Runge Sat, 07 Feb 2009 02:33:43 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=483#comment-312 I have interacted with Con a bit, and plan on doing so in the blogs. He has a copy of my chapter on the topic. What I want to focus in on is what specifically is signaled by the HP, and why does this effect come about. There are anomalies that have been left unexplained so far, as evidenced in the latest issue of JETS. This is what I want to focus in on. I have interacted with Con a bit, and plan on doing so in the blogs. He has a copy of my chapter on the topic. What I want to focus in on is what specifically is signaled by the HP, and why does this effect come about. There are anomalies that have been left unexplained so far, as evidenced in the latest issue of JETS. This is what I want to focus in on.

]]> By: Mike Aubrey http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/markedness-summary-for-the-historical-present/comment-page-1/#comment-311 Mike Aubrey Sat, 07 Feb 2009 02:31:56 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=483#comment-311 Dr. Decker, I have a question for clarity here. Do you consider the contexts where HP's occur to be places where we should expect both +perfective as well as +remoteness? Or do you view such contexts as only expecting +perfective, but not remoteness? Hmm, in seeking clarity, I hope my question is clear enough... Dr. Decker,

I have a question for clarity here.

Do you consider the contexts where HP’s occur to be places where we should expect both +perfective as well as +remoteness?

Or do you view such contexts as only expecting +perfective, but not remoteness?

Hmm, in seeking clarity, I hope my question is clear enough…

]]> By: Dan Henderson http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/markedness-summary-for-the-historical-present/comment-page-1/#comment-310 Dan Henderson Sat, 07 Feb 2009 02:25:41 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=483#comment-310 Have you interacted with Con Campbell at all? He has a book on verbal aspect and narrative that is somewhat convincing. In it, he describes the present as proximate/imperfective and the imperfect as its remote/imperfective counterpart. The historical present, then, is a discourse-prominence marker that heightens certain points of the narrative for whatever reason the author chooses. The present can be used in remote contexts, but it is not therefore remote--it keeps its proximate character to heighten the narrative. Have you interacted with Con Campbell at all? He has a book on verbal aspect and narrative that is somewhat convincing. In it, he describes the present as proximate/imperfective and the imperfect as its remote/imperfective counterpart. The historical present, then, is a discourse-prominence marker that heightens certain points of the narrative for whatever reason the author chooses. The present can be used in remote contexts, but it is not therefore remote–it keeps its proximate character to heighten the narrative.

]]> By: Rod Decker http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/markedness-summary-for-the-historical-present/comment-page-1/#comment-309 Rod Decker Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:46:10 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=483#comment-309 Then I guess it's a matter of clarity. When you say "the present being used for both “+ remote” and ” - remote” " I would assume you mean that it can grammaticalize either feature. Then I guess it’s a matter of clarity. When you say “the present being used for both “+ remote” and ” – remote” ” I would assume you mean that it can grammaticalize either feature.

]]> By: Steve Runge http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/markedness-summary-for-the-historical-present/comment-page-1/#comment-308 Steve Runge Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:40:13 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=483#comment-308 Rod, that will be the next thing that will be unpacked. I will not argue that the core meaning changes. It is the fact there there is a mismatch in the expected usage that makes the historical present stand out as marked usage. See the statement I cite from Randall Buth. I am not making the present both remote and non-remote, I am pointing out that it is found in both contexts. The question is why, to what end? I will argue that the exceptional usage is intended to make it stand out. If it were not exceptional, breaking the expected pattern, it would not be able to mark anything special, but would be accomplishing its expected semantic function. Rod, that will be the next thing that will be unpacked. I will not argue that the core meaning changes. It is the fact there there is a mismatch in the expected usage that makes the historical present stand out as marked usage. See the statement I cite from Randall Buth.

I am not making the present both remote and non-remote, I am pointing out that it is found in both contexts. The question is why, to what end?

I will argue that the exceptional usage is intended to make it stand out. If it were not exceptional, breaking the expected pattern, it would not be able to mark anything special, but would be accomplishing its expected semantic function.

]]> By: Rod Decker http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/markedness-summary-for-the-historical-present/comment-page-1/#comment-307 Rod Decker Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:31:34 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=483#comment-307 I'm not challenging the distinction between present and imperfect; I agree with the basic position you've described in that regard. It's making the present *both* remote *and* non-remote that I'm wondering about. I’m not challenging the distinction between present and imperfect; I agree with the basic position you’ve described in that regard. It’s making the present *both* remote *and* non-remote that I’m wondering about.

]]> By: Steve Runge http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/markedness-summary-for-the-historical-present/comment-page-1/#comment-306 Steve Runge Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:27:42 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=483#comment-306 Rod, I do not own any of the aspect volumes, but my understanding is that Porter and Fanning both differentiate the present from the imperfect on the basis of remoteness and distance, respectively. Again, my understanding is that Campbell makes a similar distinction on the basis of proximity. I am rereading his chapter presently for clarification. If I have misunderstood, let me know. Your chart on page 107 seemed pretty clear, but I am a simple construction worker, given to mistakes. :-) What is the meaningful distinction that you see between the imperfect and present forms? What would your chart look like? Do you see that core semantic meaning of the form inherently changing in a certain context? Rod, I do not own any of the aspect volumes, but my understanding is that Porter and Fanning both differentiate the present from the imperfect on the basis of remoteness and distance, respectively. Again, my understanding is that Campbell makes a similar distinction on the basis of proximity. I am rereading his chapter presently for clarification. If I have misunderstood, let me know. Your chart on page 107 seemed pretty clear, but I am a simple construction worker, given to mistakes. :-)

What is the meaningful distinction that you see between the imperfect and present forms? What would your chart look like? Do you see that core semantic meaning of the form inherently changing in a certain context?

]]> By: Rod Decker http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/markedness-summary-for-the-historical-present/comment-page-1/#comment-305 Rod Decker Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:17:39 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=483#comment-305 > This means that we have an overlap in the distribution of what is expected, with the present being used for both “+ remote” and ” - remote.” - - - But you are assuming in advance that the "historical present" is "- remote." What if the present, when used in past time contexts, is *not* remote? > This means that we have an overlap in the distribution of what is expected, with the present being used for both “+ remote” and ” – remote.”
- – -
But you are assuming in advance that the “historical present” is “- remote.” What if the present, when used in past time contexts, is *not* remote?

]]> By: Mike Aubrey http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/02/markedness-summary-for-the-historical-present/comment-page-1/#comment-301 Mike Aubrey Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:44:29 +0000 http://www.ntdiscourse.org/?p=483#comment-301 Another constraint will definitely be needed for the perfect, but I'm not entirely sure what it should be. Honestly, I'm inclined to make the same division that Porter does - simply because its one of the few places where he (whether knowingly or not) shows continuity with the old grammars: <a href="http://evepheso.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/porter-robertson-systemic-networks/" rel="nofollow">Porter, Robertson & Systemic Networks</a>. Another constraint will definitely be needed for the perfect, but I’m not entirely sure what it should be. Honestly, I’m inclined to make the same division that Porter does – simply because its one of the few places where he (whether knowingly or not) shows continuity with the old grammars: Porter, Robertson & Systemic Networks.

]]>