Peter Gentry of SBTS has been teaching through Discourse Grammar of the GNT this semester as part of his advanced Greek grammar course. At one point we ended up discussing my series of posts critiquing Porter’s model of verbal aspect, as it coincided with Peter’s lectures on the matter. I first met Peter at SBL in 2005 when I presenting my very first academic papers. Based on our shared interests, he has ended up attending most of the papers I have given since then, though I expect he would have been there whether I presented or not (as would I).
In comparing notes about aspect, Peter’s interests are very complementary to mine in that he has focused more on the historical and morphological issues surrounding the debate, in contrast to my focus on the theoretical framework Porter uses. Peter has mastered a whole corpus of the literature that I have yet to begin reading. He was kind enough to offer his class handout from these lectures on aspect for posting on the blog. I have deferred putting it up so far as there was a link I had intended to make about aspect and markedness. Since I have not even begun this second series, I decided to go ahead, post the handout, and make the connection when I get there.
In the meantime, my one quibble is that Peter conceives of the stative vs. non-stative decision as the first one made by a user in selecting an aspect, in contrast to the perfective vs. non-perfective view held by many. The point I wanted to make was that Peter is in good company, as Bernard Comrie shares the same view of Greek.1 While I am not yet convinced their view is best, I know better than to dismiss the dudes (and dudettes!) from the Max Planck Institute. At any rate, read and benefit from his analysis.
Thanks Peter!
Peter Gentry’s Handout on Verbal Aspect
- BernardComrie, Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 127, see also pp. 21 and 121. [↩]
Interesting! I’ve read Gentry’s hand-out and thought that the “stative” vs. “fientive” approach made quite a lot of sense. What would be the alternative or what are the merits of the other view held (i.e. imperfective vs. perfective – as a first choice?)
Jared
I generally refer to the aorist/perfective aspect as the one you chose “when you don’t care enough to send the very best,” if you are familiar with the American Hallmark Card company slogan. In that sense, it is where things begin. If you want to accomplish something other than just a simple report, i.e. to set up a state of affairs out ow which some subsequent action occur, then you move on to another aspectual form to accomplish it. Gentry’s view would argue that stative is the most basic choice, with the others chose based on wanting to represent something other than stative aspect. It is essentially an academic chicken vs. egg debate, I’d say we end up in largely the same place in terms of exegesis.
I see. I am not familiar with the slogan but understand what it’s getting at! Would you say then that there is certainly a “stative” aspect, as opposed to it being an Aktionsart (Fanning, Campbell or not. Or is it that aspect is too bound up with aspect for there to be such distinctions and if this is the case is there even a perfective/imperfective dichotomy?
(Also how do you pronounce your last name?!)
Jared
Sorry about the last reply, I got mixed up: I meant to say: “Or is that aspect is so bound up with TIME for there to be such distinctions…”
In addition to this, does Gentry really view Stative aspect as the most basic choice? I only say this because in the handout he talks of the Fientive as the unmarked choice of the first binary set and then the Perfective of the second binary set.
Jared