Cover not available
Article published In:
Asymmetries, Mismatches and Construction Grammar
Edited by Nikos Koutsoukos, Kristel Van Goethem and Hendrik De Smet
[Constructions and Frames 10:2] 2018
► pp. 210–233

The semantics of the simple tenses and full-verb inversion in English

A story of shared epistemic schemas

 | University of Antwerp
This paper offers a fresh perspective on (restrictions on) aspectual coercion, thereby focusing on the essentially epistemic import of aspectual constructions. The case study that I will discuss is the unexpected use of the simple tenses for ongoing event reports in sentences involving full-verb inversion. I will argue that this attestation of the simple present/past in inverted sentences can be analyzed as a kind of aspectual mismatch between the higher-order construction and the embedded tenses. Yet at a more basic, epistemic level of analysis, there is no mismatch: the full-verb inversion construction and the embedded tenses are similar in the sense that both report events that are conceived of as fully and instantly identifiable.
Keywords: full-verb inversion, simple tenses, progressive aspect, coercion, epistemic schemas
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Full-verb inversion in English: A brief introduction
  • 3.The aspectual properties of full-verb inversion: Corpus data and native speaker elicitations
  • 4.Mismatch at the aspectual level
  • 5.The shared epistemic schemas of full-verb inversion and the simple tenses
    • 5.1The epistemic semantics of the simple tenses
    • 5.2Full and instant identifiability and full-verb inversion
  • 6.Constraints on aspectual coercion: An epistemic motivation
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 January 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00019.wit
References (46)
References
Altshuler, D. (2016). Events, states and times: An essay on narrative discourse in English. De Gruyter Open. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bary, C. (2009). Aspect in Ancient Greek: A semantic analysis of the aorist and the imperfective. Phd Dissertation, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Birner, B. J. (1994). Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion. Language, 701, 233–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995). Pragmatic constraints on the verb in English inversion. Lingua, 971, 233–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birner, B. J., & Ward, G. (1992). On the interpretation of VP inversion in American English. Journal of Linguistics, 281, 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1977). Meaning and form. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Brisard, F. (2002). The English present. In F. Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference (pp. 251–297). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calver, E. (1946). The uses of the present tense forms in English. Language, 22(4), 317–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Celle, A., & Smith, N. (2010). Beyond aspect: Will be -ing and shall be -ing . English Language and Linguistics, 141, 239–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, R. (2003). English inversion. A ground-before-figure construction. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooper, R. (1986). Tense and discourse location in Situation Semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 91, 17–36.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2007). Construction grammar. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 463–508). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, A. D. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H., & Heyvaert, L. (2011). The meaning of the English present participle. English Language and Linguistics, 151, 473–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, H. (1998). Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 161, 347–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Wit, A. (2016). The relation between aspect and inversion in English. English Language and Linguistics, 20(1), 107–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). The present perfective paradox across languages. Oxford studies of time in language and thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Wit, A., & Brisard, F. (2014). A Cognitive Grammar account of the semantics of the English present progressive. Journal of Linguistics, 501, 49–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Wit, A., Brisard, F., & Meeuwis, M. (2018). The epistemic import of aspectual constructions: The case of performatives. Language and Cognition. 10(2), 234–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Wit, A., Petré, P. & Brisard, F. (ms.). Standing out with the progressive.
Dorgeloh, H. (1997). Inversion in Modern English: Form and function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drubig, H.-B. (1988). On the discourse function of subject-verb inversion. In J. Klegraf & D. Nehls (Eds.), Essays on the English language and applied linguistics on the occasion of Gerhard Nickel’s 60th birthday (pp. 83–95). Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J., & Woisetschlaeger, E. F. (1982). The logic of the English progressive. Linguistic Inquiry, 131, 79–89.Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Michaelis, L. A. (ms.), Partial inversion in English.
Kreyer, R. (2006). Inversion in modern written English: Syntactic complexity, information status and the creative writer. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1993). Nouns and verbs. Language, 631, 53–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). The English present tense. English language and linguistics, 51, 251–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). The English present. In A. Patard & F. Brisard (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to tense, aspect and epistemic modality (pp. 45–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lauwers, P., & Willems, D. (2011). Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics, 491, 1219–1235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ljung, M. (1980). Reflections on the English progressive. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Los, B., & Starren, M. (2012). A typological switch in early Modern English – and the beginning of one in Dutch? Leuvense Bijdragen, 981, 98–126.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2004). Type shifting in Construction Grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive linguistics, 151, 1–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Stative by construction. Linguistics, 491, 1359–1399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, B., & Borschev, V. (2007). Existential sentences, BE and the genitive of negation in Russian. In K. von Heusinger & I. Comorovski (Eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax (pp. 147–190). Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Petré, P. (2017). The extravagant progressive. An experimental corpus study on the grammaticalization history of [BE Ving]. English Language and Linguistics, 211, 227–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prado-Alonso, C. (2011). Full-verb inversion in written and spoken English. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). A constructional analysis of obligatory XVS syntactic structures. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 511, 51–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J., & Bouillon, P. (1995). Aspectual coercion and logical polysemy. Journal of Semantics, 121, 133–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (1998). Building verb meanings. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp. 97–134). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, D. (2007). A word of caution on coercion. Journal of Pragmatics, 391, 990–1028. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

DE WIT, ASTRID & FRANK BRISARD
2020. Aspect beyond time: Introduction. Journal of Linguistics 56:3 ► pp. 459 ff. DOI logo
Insaidoo Appah, Clement Kwamina & Gladys Nyarko Ansah
2020. DumsorandDumsor-Based Neologisms. Ghana Studies 23:1 ► pp. 28 ff. DOI logo
Morin, Cameron, Guillaume Desagulier & Jack Grieve
2020. Dialect syntax in Construction Grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 ► pp. 248 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.