Aspect ()

Like tense, aspect is a category related to the (2a) States: le-ha±amin be-ru≤ot להאמין ברוחות-רפאים -expression of temporality. Aspect encodes “dif ferent ways of viewing the internal temporal refa±im ‘to believe in ghosts’ ’le-±ehov ±opera ‘to love opera לאהוב אופרה .(constituency of a situation” (Comrie 1976:3 la-da≠at ≠ivrit ‘to know לדעת עברית Tense and aspect encode topological relations between two time intervals. In main, unembed- Hebrew’ ded contexts, tense relates speech time (S) to (2b) Activities: ’liß≤oq ‘to laugh לצחוק reference time (R), the time which the statement lixtov mixtavim ‘to write לכתוב מכתבים is about (Reichenbach 1947); tense is thus a deictic category. Aspect relates event time (E), letters’ ’laruß ‘to run לרוץ the time of the described event/state, to R; this relation has to do, for instance, with whether (2c) Accomplishments: ’leßayer tmuna ‘to draw a picture לצייר תמונה the boundaries of the event are included in the ’lixtov mixtav ‘to write a letter לכתוב מכתב -reference time or not. Referring to the bounda laruß šloša km ‘to run לרוץ שלושה ק"מ ries of the event time is only one facet of what is commonly covered by aspect. This tem- three km.’ poral relation has been dubbed ‘grammatical (2d) Achievements: ’lamut ‘to die למות aspect’ or ‘viewpoint aspect’ (Smith 1991; Klein lehav≤in be-≤ašud ‘to spot להבחין בחשוד -Demirdache and Uribe-Extebar ;119–1994:99 ria 2000). Other properties having to do with the suspect’ lenaßea≤ ba-ta≤arut ‘to win לנצח בתחרות the internal temporal structure of events are (1) whether or not an event involves change in the race’ time, i.e., stative vs. dynamic; (2) whether an event holds at a moment or at an interval, i.e., A linguistic description denoting a state can be punctual vs. durative; (3) whether an event has evaluated for its truth conditions at the small- built into it a terminal point, or can be pro- est fraction of time possible. It is not dynamic, tracted indefinitely, i.e., telic vs. atelic. since it does not describe any change in time. It These three properties are used to classify is not telic, since it does not encode an inherent event descriptions into aspectual classes. An endpoint to the described event, which can be attempt at such a classification dates back to protracted indefinitely. Aristotle’s distinction between kinêsis and ener- A linguistic description denoting an activity geia. The aspectual classes commonly featuring is evaluated at an interval, not a moment: in in the literature are states, activities, accom- describing an action of running, not every frac- plishments, and achievements (Ryle 1949:149– tion of time can be described by this predicate, 153; Vendler 1957; Kenny 1963; Dowty 1979: since, for instance, lifting one’s foot, which is chapter 2). These are referred to as ‘lexical required for running, does not itself qualify as aspectual classes’. Here is an illustration of the running. It is dynamic, since it describes change properties making up the classes. in time. It is not telic, since it does not encode an inherent endpoint to the described event, which (1) can be potentially protracted indefinitely. Linguistic descriptions denoting accom- Dynamic Durative Telic plishments (run three km), like activities, are State – – – evaluated at an interval, not a moment. Like activities, these are dynamic, since they involve Activity + + – change in time. However, contrary to states and Accomplishment + + + activities, these descriptions encode an inherent endpoint: in the examples of (2c), the event Achievement + – + ends when the three kilometers are run, or

BBoneh,oneh, N._AspectN._Aspect (Modern(Modern Hebrew)_1-14.inddHebrew)_1-14.indd 1 11/9/2012/9/2012 2:18:462:18:46 PMPM 2 aspect (modern hebrew) when the painting is finished. Events described vs. durative and telic vs. atelic—are manifested by accomplishment predicates cannot be pro- in Modern Hebrew (for the stative/dynamic tracted indefinitely. distinction → Stative). Finally, linguistic descriptions denoting The punctual/durative distinction is discussed achievements, like die, express by their nature by Yitzhaki (2004). Predicates which are true at ’be-≠od ‘while בעוד a change; therefore, they are dynamic. Like a moment cannot appear in states, they are true only at a given moment: clauses (3), nor in inflected infinitive clauses (4), the event they denote does not have temporal contrary to predicates which are true at intervals בעוד volume’. Achievements are by their nature (see also Greenberg 2008). The particle‘ telic, the ‘end’ point is inherent to the event be-≠od ‘while’ is inflected for person, number, described thereby; in other words, the events and gender and is obligatorily followed by the described by achievement predicates cannot be participial form of the . Inflected infinitives, -be ב- indefinitely protracted. as in (4), are preceded by the preposition The right way of grouping descriptions of ‘in’, and can inflect for person, number, and events into aspectual classes according to dis- gender. Predicates denoting activities (3a) and tinguishing properties is an issue to accomplishments (3b) are felicitous in a be-≠od- considerable debate (for instance: Dowty 1979; clause, whereas those denoting achievements Bach 1986; Rothstein 2004; an overview can be (3c) and states (3d) induce ungrammaticality. found in Filip forthcoming). Likewise, in (4), activity and accomplishment The term Aktionsart(en), coined by Agrell predicates (4a–b) are felicitous in the inflected (1908), which overlaps to some extent with the infinitive clause, but achievement and state classification outlined in table (1), is used to predicates are not (4c–d). describe different ‘manners of action’, not all In Modern Hebrew telic and atelic predi- of which are transparently related to the inner, cates can be distinguished by several means. temporal structure of events. For instance, Most crucially, predicates give rise to differ- alongside such qualifications as terminantive, ent entailment patterns according to whether resultative, delimitative, iterative, one also finds or not they denote telic events (5–6) (Bennett attenuative and augmentative (→ Aktionsart). and Partee 1978; Dowty 1979:56–57; Yitzhaky The general cross-linguistic conception is 2004 for Hebrew). Second, telic and atelic that viewpoint aspect (grammatical aspect) predicates pattern differently with respect to kim≠a† ‘almost’ (7) (Dowty כמעט tends to be encoded by inflectional means, the adverb whereas aspectual classes (and Aktionsarten) 1979:58). Third, predicates pattern differently are encoded lexically or derivationally. This with respect to whether they can complement -siyem ‘fin סיים gamar or גמר holds in Modern Hebrew as well, despite the of finishing fact that its verb system has no overt inflec- ish’ (8) (Dowty 1979:57). tional or derivational markings that can qualify Starting with entailment patterns, activities be-≠od-clauses בעוד as aspectual (Rosén 1977:179–184). and accomplishments in do not give rise to the same entailments. While 1. Lexical aspectual classes example (5a) entails that I ran (5b), in example (6) no such inference is possible. (6a) does not This section reviews how two distinctive prop- entail that Ruti completed writing the speech erties outlined in the introduction—punctual (6b).

בעודו רץ, הרגיש דני את שריריו מתכווצים (3a) Be-≠odo raß, while-3MS. run.PTCP.MS., hirgiš Dani ±et šrirav mitkavßim felt.PAST.3MS. Dani ACC muscles-3Ms. cramp.PTCP-MPL. ‘While was running, Dani felt his muscles cramping’.

BBoneh,oneh, N._AspectN._Aspect (Modern(Modern Hebrew)_1-14.inddHebrew)_1-14.indd 2 11/9/2012/9/2012 2:18:462:18:46 PMPM aspect (modern hebrew) 3 בעודה כותבת את הנאום, קיבלה רותי שיחה גורלית (3b) Be-≠odah kotevet ±et ha-ne±um, while-3FS. write.PTCP-FS. ACC the-speech, qibla Ruti si≤a goralit receive.PAST-3FS. Ruti phone-call.FS. crucial-FS. ‘While she was writing the speech, Ruti received a crucial phone-call’. *בעודה מנצחת בתחרות, נשמעה תרועה גדולה (3c) *be≠odah menaßa≤at ba-ta≤arut, while-3FS. win PTCP-FS. in.the-race nišme≠a tru≠a gdola heard.PASSIVE.PAST-3FS. clamor.FS. big-Fs. *?‘While she was winning the race, a great clamor was heard’. *בעודו אוהב שוקולד, חלה דני בסוכרת (3d) *be-≠odo ±ohev šoqolad, while-3MS. love.PTCP.3MS. chocolate ≤ala Dani be-sukeret got.sick.PAST.3MS. Dani in-diabetes *‘While he was loving chocolate, Dani got diabetes’. ברוצו, הרגיש דני את שריריו מתכווצים (4a) be-rußo in-run.INF-3MS., hirgiš Dani ±et šrirav mitkavßim felt.PAST.3MS. Dani ACC muscles-3MS. cramp.PTCP-MPL. ‘While he was running, Dani felt his muscles cramping’. בכותבה את הנאום, קיבלה רותי שיחה גורלית (4b) be-kotvah ±et ha-ne±um, in-write.INF-3FS. ACC the-speech, qibla Ruti si≤a goralit receive.PAST-3FS. Ruti phone-call.F crucial-FS. ‘While she was writing the speech, Ruti received a crucial phone-call’. *בנצחה בתחרות, נשמעה תרועה גדולה (4c) *be-naß≤ah ba-ta≤arut, in-win INF-3FS. in.the-race nišme≠a tru≠a gdola heard.PASSIVE.PAST-3FS. clamor.FS big-Fs. *?‘While she was winning the race, a great clamor was heard’. *באוהבו שוקולד, חלה דני בסוכרת (4d) *be-±ohavo šoqolad, in-love.INF-3MS. chocolate ≤ala Dani be-sukeret got.sick.PAST. 3MS. Dani in-diabetes *‘While he was loving chocolate, Dani got diabetes’. בעודי רץ, הרגשתי את שריריי מתכווצים (5a) be-≠odi raß, while-1CS. run.PTCP.MS., hirgašti ±et šriray mitkavßim felt.PAST-1CS. ACC muscles-1CS. cramp.PTCP-MPL. ‘While I was running, I felt my muscles cramping’. רצתי (5b) raßti. run.PAST-1CS. ‘I ran’.

BBoneh,oneh, N._AspectN._Aspect (Modern(Modern Hebrew)_1-14.inddHebrew)_1-14.indd 3 11/9/2012/9/2012 2:18:462:18:46 PMPM 4 aspect (modern hebrew) בעודה כותבת את הנאום, קיבלה רותי שיחה גורלית (6a) be-≠odah kotevet ±et ha-ne±um, while-3FS. write.PTCP-FS. ACC the-speech, qibla Ruti si≤a goralit receive.PAST-3FS. Ruti phone-call.F crucial-FS. ‘While she was writing the speech, Ruti received a crucial phone-call.’ רותי כתבה את הנאום (6b) Ruti katva ±et ha-ne±um Ruti write.PAST-3FS. ACC the-speech ‘Ruti wrote the speech’. דני כמעט רץ (7a) Dani kim≠a† raß Dani almost run.PAST.3MS. ‘Dani almost ran’. רותי כמעט כתבה את הנאום (7b) Ruti kim≠a† katva ±et ha-ne±um Ruti almost write.PAST-3MS. ACC the-speech ‘Ruti almost wrote the speech’.

Next are differences with respect to modifica- been excluded from the above discussion, since kim≠a† ‘almost’. the distinguishing environments exemplified in כמעט tion by the adverb Example (7a), where ‘almost’ modifies an (5)–(8) do not apply to them. These environ- activity-denoting predicate, means that Dani ments all have to do with whether a process did not run; he almost started running, but for reaches completion/culmination (accomplish- some reason eventually did not. Example (7b) ments) or not (activities). Achievements are is ambiguous: it can have a meaning similar to described as punctual; they differ from accom- the one in (7a), where writing of the speech did plishments in that they do not contain a process not take place at all, although it was somehow which reaches completion; rather they denote a intended or planned. According to the alterna- change of state, making them inherently telic. tive reading, writing of the speech began, but Achievement-denoting predicates are discussed was not completed (see Rapp and von Stechow separately in section 2. 1999 for a discussion of this ambiguity). Only The most famous test in the literature for accomplishment-denoting predicates give rise distinguishing telic and atelic predicates is mod- to reading that denote incompletion, suggest- ification by in-x-time and for-x-time adver- ing that they encode an endpoint that was not bials. In English, for-x-time adverbials can reached. freely modify activities (9a), but are awkward Finally, differences are found in the possibil- with accomplishments (9b), since the latter ity of complementing verbs of finishing such as are supposedly sensitive to atelicity. In-x-time siyem ‘finish’. adverbials on the other hand are natural with סיים gamar or גמר siyem ‘fin- accomplishments, measuring the extent of the סיים An aspectual phase verb like ish’ is odd with an activity-denoting predicate event described by the predicate. With activity- as its complement (8a). A sentence like (8a) denoting predicates, in-x-time adverbials may is only felicitous in a context where a par- measure the time leading up to the onset of ticular distance has been pre-determined for the described activity when it takes place in Dani. Example (8b), with an accomplishment- the future—a reading irrelevant to the issue of denoting predicate, is perfectly natural in this telicity. context. In Modern Hebrew, the equivalent of the for- be-mešex במשך חצי שעה ,.Predicates denoting achievements, such as x-time adverbial, e.g lenaßea≤ bata≤arut ‘win the race’, ≤aßi ša≠a ‘for half an hour’, is felicitous with לנצח בתחרות lehav≤in be≤ašud ‘spot a sus- accomplishments, unlike in English (see also להבחין בחשוד .(lamut ‘die’, although telic, have Yitzhaki 2004 for this observation למות ,’pect

BBoneh,oneh, N._AspectN._Aspect (Modern(Modern Hebrew)_1-14.inddHebrew)_1-14.indd 4 11/9/2012/9/2012 2:18:472:18:47 PMPM aspect (modern hebrew) 5 #דני סיים לרוץ (8a) #Dani siyem laruß Dani finish.PAST.3MS. to.run.INF # #‘Dani finished running’. רותי סיימה לכתוב את הנאום (8b) Ruti siyma lixtov ±et ha-ne±um Ruti finish.PAST-3FS. to.write.INF ACC the-speech ‘Ruti finished writing the speech’. (9a) Danny ran for half an hour / #in half an hour. (9b) Ruth wrote the speech in half an hour / #for half an hour. דני רץ במשך / #תוך חצי שעה (10a) Dani raß bemešex / #tox ≤aßi ša≠a Dani run.PAST.3MS. for / in half hour ‘Dani ran for / #in half an hour’. רותי כתבה את הנאום במשך חצי שעה / תוך חצי שעה (10b) Ruti katva ±et ha-ne±um bemešex / tox ≤aßi ša≠a Ruti write.past-3FS. ACC the-speech for / in half hour ‘Ruti wrote the speech in / #for half an hour’.

Example (10a), with the activity-denoting pred- 2. Viewpoint aspect icate, is parallel to the English one in (9a): the be-mešex ≤aßi ša≠a The term viewpoint aspect (or grammatical במשך חצי שעה adverbial ‘for half an hour’ measures the running time, aspect) was coined by Smith (1991), inspired tox ≤aßi by Comrie’s (1976:3) definition of aspect cited תוך חצי שעה whereas the adverbial ša≠a ‘in half an hour’, though it may measure above. This category contains a primary dis- the time span until the onset of a future run- tinction between whether the initial and end ning activity, does not measure the extent of the point of the described event are linguistically underlying event. In (10b), while modification expressed or not (perfective and imperfective tox ≤aßi ša≠a aspect, respectively). In Reichenbachian terms תוך חצי שעה with the adverbial ‘in half an hour’ corresponds to English, the (Klein 1994; Kratzer 1998), this is captured be-mešex ≤aßi ša≠a by inclusion relations between the reference במשך חצי שעה adverbial ‘for half an hour’ is fully felicitous, unlike in time (R) and the event time (E). Perfectivity English, as if the predicate in (10b) were atelic. ensues when the event time is included in the This is the crucial point of divergence from the reference time, implying that the endpoints of English equivalent accomplishment-denoting the event are made ‘visible’; whereas imperfec- predicate (9b). The full felicity of the predicate tivity ensues when the event time includes the lixtov ±et ha-ne±um ‘to write reference time, in which case the endpoints of לכתוב את הנאום be-mešex-adverbials is the event are not part of what is linguistically במשך the speech’ with surprising in view of the other telicity tests expressed. shown in examples (6)–(8). One explanation Verb forms in Modern Hebrew are not inflec- for the inapplicability of this telicity test to tionally marked for viewpoint aspect (Rosén Hebrew may be that the adverbial expressions 1977:179–184). In other words, verb forms in the two languages are not truly equivalent. are not morphologically marked for whether Another possible explanation relates to issues the event they describe has endpoints or not. of viewpoint aspect specific to Modern Hebrew This can be exemplified with accomplishment- and their interaction with lexical aspectual denoting predicates in the past tense. classes. Viewpoint aspect is the topic of the next section.

BBoneh,oneh, N._AspectN._Aspect (Modern(Modern Hebrew)_1-14.inddHebrew)_1-14.indd 5 11/9/2012/9/2012 2:18:472:18:47 PMPM 6 aspect (modern hebrew) רותי כתבה נאום, וסיימה אותו / ולא סיימה אותו (11a) Ruti katva ne±um, ve-siyma Ruti write.past-3FS. speech and-finish.PAST-3FS. ±oto / ve-lo siyma ±oto it / and-not finish.PAST-3FS. it ‘Ruti wrote a speech and finished it / #and did not finish it’. דני אכל סנדוויץ‘, וסיים אותו / ולא סיים אותו (11b) Dani ±axal sendvi∑, ve-siyem o±to / Dani eat.PAST.3MS. sandwich, and-finish.PAST.3MS. it / ve-lo siyem ±oto and-not finish.PAST.3MS. it ‘Dani ate a sandwich and finished it / #and didn’t finish it’. כשנכנסתי לחדר, רותי שמחה (12) k-še-nixnasti la-≤eder, Ruti sam≤a when-enter.PAST-1CS. to.the-room, Ruti be.happy.PAST-3FS. i. ‘When I entered the room, Ruti was happy’ [overlapping reading]. ii. ‘When I entered the room, Ruti rejoiced’ [consecutive reading]. כשנכנסתי לחדר, דני צחק (13) k-še-nixnasti la-≤eder, Dani ßa≤aq when-enter.PAST-1CS. to.the-room, Dani laugh.PAST.3MS. i. ‘When I entered the room, Dani was laughing’ [overlapping reading]. ii. ‘When I entered the room, Dani laughed’ [consecutive reading]. כשנכנסתי לחדר, רותי כתבה את הנאום (14) k-še-nixnasti la-≤eder, Ruti katva ±et ha-ne±um when-enter.PAST-1CS. to.the-room, Ruti write.PAST-3FS. ACC the-speech i. ‘When I entered the room, Ruti was writing the speech’ [overlapping reading]. ii. ‘When I entered the room, Ruti wrote the speech’ [consecutive reading].

Examples (11a)–(11b) show that in the past the reference time (R) in sentences contain- tense, without a proper context, an event which ing predicates from the four lexical aspectual potentially has a terminal point, like write a classes discussed above: (1) modifications by speech or eat a sandwich can be conceived punctual when-clauses (Smith 1991), (12)–(15); either as completed or not, that is, as being (2) modification by frame adverbs such as that described with its endpoint or not. It can be morning, in 2011 (16)–(19). -’k-še- ‘when כש- said that are unspecified Modification by punctual for aspect in the past tense. However, closer clauses gives rise to either overlapping or con- scrutiny reveals that not ‘everything goes’ in the secutive readings. An overlapping reading is Modern Hebrew verb system. There are linguis- one in which the event described in the main tic contexts, featuring adverbial expressions clause overlaps with the one described in the specifying the reference time (R), (→Temporal k-še-clause. The event described in the main adverbial expressions), which reveal a consist- clause is viewed imperfectively in this case, since ent pattern, leading Boneh and Doron (2008; the initial and final points are not included. A 2010) to suggest that Modern Hebrew has consecutive reading is one in which the event a default aspectual specification (in the past described in the main clause immediately fol- tense): dynamic predicates are interpreted by lows the one described in the k-še-clause. In this default as perfective, whereas stative predi- case, the initial part of the event is expressed, cates are by default imperfective. In non-default and is thus said to be viewed perfectively. cases, dynamic predicates can be interpreted Examples (12)–(15) exemplify the four aspec- imperfectively, and stative ones perfectively. tual classes, states, activities, accomplishments, This state of affairs will be illustrated with achievements, respectively. two types of adverbial expressions specifying

BBoneh,oneh, N._AspectN._Aspect (Modern(Modern Hebrew)_1-14.inddHebrew)_1-14.indd 6 11/9/2012/9/2012 2:18:472:18:47 PMPM aspect (modern hebrew) 7 כשנכנסתי לחדר, דני ניצח במשחק (15) k-še-nixnasti la-≤eder, Dani nißea≤ ba-mis≤aq when-enter.PAST-1CS. to.the-room, Dani win.PAST.3MS. in.the-game Only reading: ‘When I entered the room, Dani won the game’. בצעירותו, הוא האמין ברוחות רפאים (16) bi-ße≠iruto, hu he±emin be-ru≤ot refa±im in-youth-3MS., he believe.PAS.3MS. in-ghosts ‘When he was young, he believed in ghosts, . . . i. . . . he also believed in ghosts later, as he got older’. ii. . . . but then he stopped’. באותו בוקר, רצתי (17) be-±oto boqer, raßti on-that morning, run.PAST-1CS. ‘That morning, I ran / was running’. ביום שני, היא כתבה את הנאום (18) be-yom šeni, hi katva ±et ha-ne±um on-day second, she write.PAST-3FS. ACC the-speech ‘On Monday, she wrote / was writing the speech’. בלילה הוא מת (19) ba-layla, hu met in.the-night, he die.PAST.3MS. ‘At night, he died’.

Not: # #‘When I entered the room, Dani was i.e. the perfective reading. The stative predicate winning the game’. in (16) is more readily interpreted as including State predicates (12) may be interpreted as the reference time, although the reverse relation overlapping the adverbial k-še-clause. This is is also possible. The dynamic predicates (17)– their default reading, and for some state predi- (18) are more readily interpreted perfectively, cates the only reading (→ Stative). They may as included in the reference time, although also be interpreted with the consecutive read- the reverse relation, giving rise to imperfectiv- ing, i.e., interpreted perfectively, but this usually ity, is also available. These temporal contexts necessitates a more marked context. Activity illustrate the generalization formulated above, and accomplishment predicates (13)–(14) can namely that in Modern Hebrew past-tensed also be interpreted according to either overlap- clauses, the imperfective reading is the default ping or consecutive readings. However, in this reading with stative predicates, whereas the case, the default reading is the consecutive, perfective reading is the default reading with and the overlapping reading may arise only in dynamic predicates. a more marked context. Lastly, achievement This generalization could be the basis for predicates (15) only give rise to the consecutive an explanation as to why accomplishments be-mešex-adverbials במשך reading, where the winning follows my entering are compatible with the room. An overlapping reading is not avail- (example (10b) in section 1), contrary to a able in this case, suggesting that achievements parallel state of affairs in English (9b). If in Modern Hebrew past tense may only be be-mešex-adverbials operate on an imperfec- interpreted perfectively. tively interpreted accomplishment predicate The next set of examples (16)–(19), exempli- (under the non-default reading), compatibility fies the four aspectual classes with non-punctual between the two would not be excluded. frame adverbs specifying the reference time. In the present tense, contrary to the past In (16)–(18), the frame adverbial specifying tense, verbal predicates of all types of aspectual the reference time may be interpreted as either classes (20)–(23), including achievements (23), included in the event given in the main clause are interpreted without reference to the end- or including it, while for achievements (19), it points of the event. may only be interpreted as including the event,

BBoneh,oneh, N._AspectN._Aspect (Modern(Modern Hebrew)_1-14.inddHebrew)_1-14.indd 7 11/9/2012/9/2012 2:18:472:18:47 PMPM 8 aspect (modern hebrew) הוא מאמין ברוחות-רפאים (20) hu ma±amin be-ru≤ot refa±im he believe.PTCP.MS. in-ghosts ‘He believes in ghosts’. אני רצה עכשיו בפארק (21) ±ani raßa ≠axšav ba-parq I run.PTCP-FS. now in.the-park ‘I am running in the park now’. היא כותבת עכשיו את הנאום (22) hi kotevet ≠axšav ±et ha-ne±um she write.PTCP-FS. now ACC the-speech ‘She is writing the speech now’. היא מנצחת בתחרות (23a) hi menaßa≤at ba-ta≤arut she win.PTCP-FS. in.the-competition ‘She is winning the competition’. המטוס נוחת (23b) ha-ma†os no≤et the-plane land.PTCP.MS. ‘The plane is landing’. נשכב / שכב (24a) šaxav / niškav ‘lie’ (state, durative) / ‘lie down’ (achievement: inchoative, punctual) התיישב / ישב (24b) yašav / hityašev ‘sit’ (state, durative) / ‘sit down’ (achievement: inchoative, punctual) התהלך / הלך (24c) halax / hithalex ‘leave’ (achievement, also ‘walk’, ‘go’) / ‘walk around’ (activity, durative) התחלה / חלה (24d) ≤ala / hit≤ala ‘fall ill’ (achievement) / ‘pretend to be ill’ (activity, durative)

In the case of achievements, interestingly, While some positional verbs (durative) in the the change-of-state point (the endpoint) is pa≠al verb pattern have inchoative (punctual) not included in the description; the available counterparts in the nif ≠al or hitpa≠el verb pat- interpretation is akin to that of the progres- terns (24a)–(24b), the opposite direction is also sive, where a preparatory phase, preceding the attested, where the hitpa≠el verb pattern express change-of-state point is expressed (see Dowty durativity, and the pa≠al pattern punctuality 1979:133–187; Landman 1992 on the seman- (24c)–(24d). tics of the progressive; see Comrie 1976; Smith This section reviews lexical and periphrastic 1991; Giorgi and Pianesi 2001 on the difference means employed in Modern Hebrew to express between the imperfective and the progressive). the various aspectual sub-categories. The fol- lowing sub-sections are organized according to 3. Lexical means and forms and types of constructions, not according periphrasis in the expression to aspectual meanings. of Aspect in Modern Hebrew + infinitive. The common verbs used with infinitives in Modern Hebrew Lexical aspectual values may sometimes be to express aspects of the event or action are the expressed in Modern Hebrew by the different following. verb patterns (Rosén 1977:179–184; Muchnik The verbs listed in (25) are auxiliaries, 1989), but this is not done in a systematic way since they do not impose semantic selectional (Doron 2003; → Binyan). restrictions on the individual referred to by the

BBoneh,oneh, N._AspectN._Aspect (Modern(Modern Hebrew)_1-14.inddHebrew)_1-14.indd 8 11/9/2012/9/2012 2:18:472:18:47 PMPM aspect (modern hebrew) 9 הולך omed and≠ עומד subject noun phrase, whether it is animate or The future auxiliaries inanimate, for instance. holex with an infinitival phrase (also the adjec- ([atid, lit. ‘future’, see Tsivoni [1993≠ עתיד The verbs listed above in (26), on the other tive hand, are not truly auxiliaries, since they are express that the underlying event will occur with selective as to the semantic properties of the a high degree of probability in the near future. subject, which has to refer to an animate These verbs do not impose aspectual selectional being. restrictions on the infinitival phrases following Some auxiliaries serve to express prospective them. On the other hand, aspectual phase verbs events or near future (27); others are used to are more selective as to the type of infinitival describe phases related to the unfolding of the phrase following them: true achievements are described event (28). not natural after these verbs, since they are

;’halax ‘go, walk הלך ;’amad ‘stand≠ עמד (25) -himšix ‘con המשיך ;’hit≤il ‘start התחיל -hif הפסיק ;’hosif ‘continue הוסיף ;’tinue .’adal ‘cease≥ חדל ;’siq ‘stop ;’siyem ‘finish סיים ;’gamar ‘finish גמר (26) hirba הרבה ;’nahag ‘be accustomed נהג -mi≠e† ‘do infre מיעט ;’do frequently‘ quently’. דני עומד ללכת (27a) Dani ≠omed lalexet Dani stand.PTCP.MS. to.go ‘Dani is about to leave’. עומד לרדת גשם (27b) ≠omed laredet gešem stand.PTCP.MS. to.fall rain ‘It is about to rain’. רותי הפסיקה לכתוב את הנאום (28a) Ruti hifsiqa lixtov ±et ha-ne±um Ruti stop.PAST-3FS. to.write ACC the-speech ‘Ruti stopped writing the speech’. הגשם הפסיק לרדת (28b) ha-gešem hifsiq laredet The-rain stop.PAST.3MS. to.fall ‘It stopped raining’. דני מרבה ללכת לקולנוע (29a) Dani marbe lalexet la-qolnoa≠ Dani do.frequently.PTCP.MS.M to.go to.the-cinema ‘Dani went frequently to the cinema’. #גשם מרבה לרדת (29b) # #gešem marbe laredet rain do.frequently.PTCP.MS. to.fall # #‘It frequently rains’. רותי סיימה לכתוב את הנאום (30a) Ruti siyma lixtov ±et ha-ne±um Ruti finish.PAST-3FS. to.write ACC the-speech ‘Ruti finished writing the speech’. #הגשם סיים לרדת (30b) # #ha-gešem siyem laredet The-rain finish.PAST.3MS. to.fall #‘It finished raining’.

BBoneh,oneh, N._AspectN._Aspect (Modern(Modern Hebrew)_1-14.inddHebrew)_1-14.indd 9 11/9/2012/9/2012 2:18:472:18:47 PMPM 10 aspect (modern hebrew) punctual and do not describe an event that can atorily precede the former (33c) (see Laca be subdivided into phases. For instance, the 2004 for a survey of semantic and grammati- mamšix ‘continue’ cannot be natu- cal restrictions on aspectual auxiliaries in the ממשיך verb rally followed by a truly punctual achievement romance languages). haya ‘be’ auxiliary + . This היה ’lamut ‘die למות denoting infinitival phrase like (32a). The only way for an achievement to be verbal form contains the past-tense form of haya ‘to be’ and the participle היה in the complement of such an auxiliary is if an the verb iterative reading is available, as in (32b). (→ Tense; → Compound verb). Rosén The auxiliary verbs listed in (25) can be (1966:227–228, 1977:184–188) referred to it stacked to form a chain of infinitival phrases. as the Compound Remotive. In main indica- Stacking possibilities separate the future auxil- tive clauses, it is used to express habituality iaries from the aspectual phase ones. (→ Mood and Modality), as illustrated in (34a). Intended: ‘He will start to be about/ to intend With a certain type of stative verb it gives to stop smoking’. rise to a distant past reading (34b), which is While there are no restrictions on the order not habitual (Tsivoni 1993; Boneh and Doron of aspectual phase auxiliaries and frequency 2008; 2010). auxiliaries (33a)–(33b), future auxiliaries oblig-

דני נוהג לרוץ בערב (31a) Dani noheg laruß ba-≠erev Dani be.accustum.PTCP.MS. to.run in.the-evening ‘Dani is accustomed to run in the evening’. #הגשם נוהג לרדת כאן בערב (31b) # #ha-gešem noheg laredet kan ba-≠erev The-rain be.accustum.PTCP.MS. to.fall here in.the-evening # #‘It is accustomed to rain here in the evening’. #דני ממשיך למות (32a) # #Dani mamšix lamut Dani continue.PTCP.MS. to.die # ‘Dani continues to die’. אנשים ממשיכים למות (32b) ±anašim mamšixim lamut people continue.PTCP-MPL. to.die ‘People continue to die’. #הוא עומד/הולך להתחיל להפסיק לעשן (33a) hu ≠omed / holex lehat≤il lehafsiq le≠ašen He stand / go.PTCP.MS. to.start to.stop to.smoke ‘He is about / intends to start stopping smoking’. הוא עומד/הולך להפסיק להתחיל לעשן (33b) hu ≠omed / holex lehafsiq lehat≤il le≠ašen He stand / go.PTCP.MS. to.stop to.start to.smoke ‘He is about / intends to stop starting smoking’. #הוא יתחיל לעמוד/ללכת להפסיק לעשן (33c) # #hu yat≤il la≠amod / lalexet lehafsiq le≠ašen He start.PTCP.MS. to.stand / to.go to.stop to.smoke דני היה רץ בפארק (34a) Dani haya raß ba-parq Dani BE.PAST.3MS. run.PTCP.MS. in.the-park ‘Dani used to/would run in the park’. הוריי היו גרים בשכונה הזאת (34b) horay hayu garim ba-šxuna ha-zot parents.my BE.PAST-CPL live.PTCP-MPL. in.the-neighborhood the-this ‘My parents used to live in this neighborhood’.

BBoneh,oneh, N._AspectN._Aspect (Modern(Modern Hebrew)_1-14.inddHebrew)_1-14.indd 1010 11/9/2012/9/2012 2:18:472:18:47 PMPM aspect (modern hebrew) 11 in a semi-productive way, which does not rely נשוא) Coordinated auxiliary and lexical verb nasu mur≤av). This periphrastic con- on the verbal system, consists of non-verbal מורחב שם פעולה struction consists of verbal forms with the same sentences featuring the verbal noun tense, combined via the coordination conjunc- šem tag">pe≠ula, preceded by the locative preposition .be- ‘in’, in predicative position ב- ve- ‘and’. One of the two verb forms is ו- tion auxiliary, having a ‘bleached’ semantic content: Example (37c) shows that be+šem pe≠ula can -ozer ‘return’, while the be the complement of an aspectual phase auxil≥ חוזר ,’holex ‘go הולך other preserves its full lexical content. With iary (see Abusch 1988). -holex, the construc הולך the auxiliary verb tion expresses gradual progression (35a); with 4. The perfect ozer, it expresses iteration≥ חוזר the auxiliary (35b). The perfect is a temporal category sharing In some cases, there is no grammatical signifi- semantic and syntactic properties with both cance to the order in which the auxiliary and aspect and tense, making it temporally com- the lexical verbs appear; example (36) differs plex. It expresses the anteriority of an event from (35a) only stylistically, though it is consid- relative to a given point in time, but also that ered a disruption of the standard order in (35) the anterior event has some current relevance from a normative viewpoint. or is succeeded by a resultant state (Jespersen The coordinated periphrastic construction 1924; Dowty 1979:339). Perfect readings have belongs to a more official register of Modern been observed to have sub-readings, differing holex as to the way current relevance or the resultant הולך Hebrew. This is in contrast with with an infinitive, which expresses futurity and state are perceived: the Experiential Perfect, the belongs to a non-formal register (see above). Universal Perfect, and the Resultative Perfect -šem-pe≠ula). (see Mittwoch 1988; Iatridou, Anagnostopou שם-פעולה) The verbal noun Lastly, another way to express ‘ongoingness’, lou and Izvorsky 2001 for discussion and sur- vey of literature on the perfect).

הגירעון בתקציב הולך וגדל (35a) ha-gera≠on ba-taqßiv holex ve-gadel the-deficit in.the-budget go.PTCP.MS. and-grow.PTCP.MS. ‘The budgetary deficit continuously increases’. אני חוזר ואומר שדבר כזה לא ייתכן (35b) ±ani ≤ozer ve-±omer še-davar ka-ze lo yitaxen I return.PTCP.MS. and-say.PTCP.MS. that-thing like-this not possible ‘I say again that such a thing is not possible’. הגירעון בתקציב גדל והולך (36) ha-gera≠on ba-taqßiv gadel ve-holex the-deficit in.the-budget grow.PTCP.MS. and-go.PTCP.MS. ‘The budgetary deficit continuously increases’. הבית שלהם עדיין בבנייה (37a) ha-bayit šelahem ≠adayin bi-vniya the-house theirs still in-construction ‘Their house is still under construction/is still being built’. מערכת היחסים שלהם עכשיו בהתהוות (37b) ma≠arexet ha-ye≤asim šelahem ≠axšav be-hithavut system the-relations theirs now in-becoming ‘Their relationship is now forming’. רותי ממשיכה בחיסול יריביה הפוליטיים (37c) Ruti mamšixa be-≤isul yeriveha ha-poli†iyim Ruti continue.PTCP-FS. in-liquidation rivals-her the-political ‘Ruti keeps on liquidating her political rivals’.

BBoneh,oneh, N._AspectN._Aspect (Modern(Modern Hebrew)_1-14.inddHebrew)_1-14.indd 1111 11/9/2012/9/2012 2:18:482:18:48 PMPM 12 aspect (modern hebrew) In Modern Hebrew, the perfect is not encoded reading, the underlying event is anterior to morphologically. However, perfect interpre- the speech time, but close to it. Here too, the tations may arise when specific adverbs are occurrence of the underlying event is relevant -kvar in some way at speech time (39a)–(39c). Predi כבר :employed. The three main ones are mi-ze ‘for’ cates describing statives do not give rise to a מזה ,’axšav ‘now≠ עכשיו ,’already‘ (Tsivoni 1993; Sevi 2008). perfect reading in this case (39d). -mi-ze ‘for’ when combined with the par מזה -kvar ‘already’ gives rise to perfect read כבר ings when the verb is in the past tense (see ticipial form (present tense), or the past-tense kvar form with a past point of view of free indirect כבר Sevi 2008 for a semantic analysis of including non-temporal readings). This adver- discourse, triggers a Universal Perfect read- bial modification gives rise to the Experiential ing. Under this reading, the underlying event Perfect reading, in which the underlying event is understood as stretching from a point in is anterior to the speech time, but relevant in the past, specified by the adverbial expression, some way at speech time (38a)–(38c). Predi- up to and including speech time. All aspectual cates describing statives do not give rise to a types of events are attested with this perfect perfect reading in this configuration (38d). reading. Dynamic events can sometimes be axšav ‘now’ gives rise to Resultative interpreted as iterative: this holds most saliently≠ עכשיו or near-past, perfect readings when the verb for achievements (40b), but also for the other is in the past tense. According to this perfect dynamic events, depending on the length of

רותי כבר כתבה את הנאום (38a) Ruti kvar katva ±et ha-ne±um Ruti already write.PAST-3FS. ACC the-speech ‘Ruti has already written the speech’. רותי כבר נצחה בתחרות (38b) Ruti kvar niß≤a ba-ta≤arut Ruti already win.PAST-3FS. in.the-race ‘Ruti has already won the race’. כבר רצתי בפארק (38c) kvar raßti ba-parq already run.PAST-1CS. in.the-park ‘I have already run in the park’. #דני כבר האמין ברוחות רפאים (38d) # #Dani kvar he±emin be-ru≤ot refa±im Dani already believe.PAST.3MS. in-ghosts ‘Dani has already believed in ghosts’. רותי כתבה עכשיו את הנאום (39a) Ruti katva ≠axšav ±et ha-ne±um Ruti write.PAST-3FS. now ACC the-speech ‘Ruti has now/just written the speech’. רותי נצחה עכשיו בתחרות (39b) Ruti niß≤a ≠axšav ba-ta≤arut Ruti win.PAST-3FS. now in.the-race ‘Ruti has now/just won the race’. רצתי עכשיו בפארק (39c) raßti ≠axšav ba-parq run.PAST-1CS. now in.the-park ‘I have (just) now run in the park’. #דני האמין עכשיו ברוחות רפאים (39d) # #Dani he±emin ≠axšav be-ru≤ot refa±im Dani believe.PAST.3MS. now in-ghosts #‘Dani has now/just believed in ghosts’.

BBoneh,oneh, N._AspectN._Aspect (Modern(Modern Hebrew)_1-14.inddHebrew)_1-14.indd 1212 11/9/2012/9/2012 2:18:482:18:48 PMPM aspect (modern hebrew) 13 מזה שבוע רותי כותבת את הנאום (40a) mi-ze šavua≠ Ruti kotevet ±et ha-ne±um For week Ruti write.PTCP-FS. ACC the-speech ‘Ruti has been writing the speech for a week’. מזה שעתיים רותי מנצחת במשחק (40b) mi-ze še≠atayim Ruti menaßa≤at ba-mis≤aq For hour.DUAL Ruti win.PTCP-FS. in.the-game ‘Ruti has been winning the game for two hours’. מזה חודש אני רץ בפארק (40c) mi-ze ≤odeš ±ani raß ba-parq For month I run.PTCP.MS. in.the-park ‘I have been running in the park for a month’. מזה שנים דני מאמין ברוחות רפאים (40d) mi-ze šanim Dani ma±amin be-ru≤ot refa±im For years Dani believe.PTCP.MS. in-ghosts ‘Dani has believed in ghosts for years’.

the time interval specified by the adverbial Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cam- expression. In the set of examples in (40), the bridge University Press. Demirdache, Hamida and Myriam Uribe-Extebarria. activity denoting predicate in (40c) may only be 2000. “The primitives of temporal relations”. Step interpreted iteratively; if the adverbial expres- by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor sion designates a shorter period of time, like of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David -mi-ze ša≠atayim ‘for two hours’, a Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 157–186. Cam מזה שעתיים bridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. durational, ongoing interpretation would have De Swart, Henriette. 1998. “Aspect shift and coer- been available. cion”. Natural language and Linguistic Theory In summary, despite its apparent morpholog- 16:347–385. ical ‘deficiency’, the notional category of aspect, Doron, Edit. 2003. “Agency and : The seman- tics of the Semitic templates”. Natural Language with its various sub-categories, is fully present Semantics 11:1–67. in the Modern Hebrew verb system. Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. References Filip, Hana (forthcoming). “Aspectual class and Abusch, Dorit. 1988. “The semantics of progressive Aktionsart”. Semantics: An international hand- tense” (in Hebrew). Hebrew Linguistics 26:5–16. book of natural language meaning, ed. by Klaus Agrell, Sigurd. 1908. Aspecktänderung und Aktions- von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn, and Paul artbildung beim polnischen Zeitworte: Ein Beitrag Portner. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. zum Studium der indogermanischen Präverbia und Giorgi, Alessandra and Fabio Pianesi. 2001. “Ways ihrer Bedeutungsfunktionen. Lund: Ohlsson. of terminating”. Semantic interfaces, ed. by Carlo Bach, Emmon. 1986. “The algebra of events”. Lin- Cecchetto, Gennaro Chierchia, and Maria Teresa guistics and Philosophy 9:5–16. Guasti, 211–277. Stanford, California: CSLI Bennett, Michael and Barbara H. Partee. 1978. Publications. Towards the logic of tense and aspect in English. Greenberg, Yael. 2008. “On be-, be≠odo, and ≠adayin” Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. (in Hebrew). Hebrew Linguistics 61:29–42. Bertinetto, Pier-Marco. 2001. “On a frequent mis- Iatridou, Sabine, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Rou- understanding in the temporal-aspectual domain: myana Izvorsky. 2001. “Observations about the The ‘perfective = telic confusion’ ”. Semantic inter- form and meaning of the perfect”. Ken Hale: A life faces, ed. by Carlo Cecchetto, Genarro Chierchia, in language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 189–238. and Maria Teresa Guasti, 177–210. Stanford, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. California: CSLI Publications. Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. Boneh, Nora and Edit Doron. 2008. “Habituality London: Allen & Unwin. and ”. Theoretical and crosslin- Kenny, Anthony. 1963. Action, emotion and will. guistic approaches to the semantics of aspect, ed. London: Routledge. by Susan Rothstein, 321–347. Amsterdam: John Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in language. London: Benjamins. Routledge. ——. 2010. “Modal and temporal aspects of habitu- Laca, Brenda. 2004. “Romance ‘aspectual’ periphra- ality”. Syntax, lexical semantics, and event struc- sis: Eventuality modification vs. ‘syntactic’ aspect”. ture, ed. by Malka Rappaport-Hovav, Edit Doron, The syntax of time, ed. by Jacqueline Guéron and and Ivy Sichel, 338–363. Oxford: Oxford Univer- Jacqueline Lecarme, 425–440. Cambridge Mas- sity Press. sachusetts: MIT Press.

BBoneh,oneh, N._AspectN._Aspect (Modern(Modern Hebrew)_1-14.inddHebrew)_1-14.indd 1313 11/9/2012/9/2012 2:18:482:18:48 PMPM 14 aspect (modern hebrew) Landman, Fred. 1992. “The progressive”. Natural Language Semantics 1:1–32. Mittwoch, Anita. 1988. “Aspects of English aspect: On the interaction of perfect, progressive and durational phrases”. Linguistics and Philosophy 11:203–254. Muchnik, Malka. 1989. “Expressions of tense, mood, and aspect in Modern Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Hebrew Linguistics 27:29–54. Rapp, Irene and Arnim von Stechow. 1999. “Fast ‘almost’ and the visibility parameter for functional adverbs”. Journal of Semantics 16:149–204. Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. London: Macmillan. Rosén, Haiim, B. 1966. A textbook of Israeli Hebrew. 2nd edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ——. 1977. Contemporary Hebrew. The Hague: Mouton. Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Oxford: Black- well Publishing. Ryle, Gilbert. 1949. The concept of mind. London: Barnes and Noble. Sevi, Aldo. 2008. “kvar” (in Hebrew). Hebrew Lin- guistics 61:43–54. Smith, Carlota, S. 1991. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Tsivoni, Lea. 1993. “Ways to express perfective, iterative, durative, and tense in written Israeli Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 56:55–87. Vendler, Zeno. 1957. “Verbs and times”. Philo- sophical Review 56:143–160. Yitzhaki, Dafna. 2004. “The semantics of lexical aspect in Modern Hebrew”. Proceedings of Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics .

Nora Boneh (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

BBoneh,oneh, N._AspectN._Aspect (Modern(Modern Hebrew)_1-14.inddHebrew)_1-14.indd 1414 11/9/2012/9/2012 2:18:482:18:48 PMPM