Mirjana M. Mišković-Luković
(E) and the point of reference (R). For example, a tensed clause, such as (1), framed in the Past Perfect tense, concerns two events: (1)
Peter had gone. (taken from Reichenbach 2004:526)
The positions of the two events are determined by S: E is the time when Peter went and R is a time between E and S. Still, the indeterminacy of de-contextualised utterances, such as (1), echoes the practice of grammar-books, and is, moreover, equally hedged in terms of explanation: In an individual sentence [...] it is not clear which time point is used as the point of reference. This determination is rather given by the context of speech. (Reichenbach 2004:526) Vendler, on the other hand, is more concerned with a proper semantic definition of verbal meaning (and, by extension, with the meaning of tense and aspect), but, just like Reichenbach, he takes time as the defining factor. Vendler, accordingly, classifies verbal predicates into states (e.g. understand), activities (e.g. carry), accomplishments (e.g. hide) and achievements (e.g. find). However, he also voices reservation: [T]he use of a verb may suggest the particular way in which that verb presupposes and involves the notion of time. (Vendler 1967:97–98) For example, the intransitive use of the verb run in (2a) denotes activity while the transitive version in (2b) denotes accomplishment: (2)
a. b.
Ray ran. Ray ran a mile.
A corollary of adopting the Vendlerian classes as semantic (and potentially universal) categories leaves us not only with the indeterminacy of the semantics of verbal predicates (e.g. whether run is a semantically ambiguous, vague or indeterminate predicate) but also, and more importantly to the matter at hand, with a host of problems related to the interaction of the semantics of tense/aspect and verbal predicates. Against the background so far depicted, the aim of my paper is to examine and discuss two contemporary, albeit opposing, perspectives on the issue at hand: one, professedly, radically-semantic, the other, professedly, radically-pragmatic. What they have in common, however, in relation to the “traditional” approaches to tense (and aspect), is that they are crucially theoretically-holistic. 76
Липар / Часопис за књижевност, језик, уметност и културу