The semantics of the English progressive

The semantics of the English progressive

Introduction

The perfect progressive is also known as the perfect continuous. It has generalized the morphosyntactic form, has not been having. Its finite can be past or non-past and tends to take the subject agreement V, where V is any form of a verb. Stative verbs do not appear as progressive. Initially, the perfect progressive was tense, but along the coming of the 20^thcentury, it has now become the perfect aspect and the continuous aspect. Aspect has widely been discussed when it comes to English grammar. This is concerning the internal structure of actions as well as states and events. It revolves around the grammatical category of English verbs and tenses. A verb is described or represented depending on the speaker’s point of view. For example, there are two approaches to the available aspect that is temporal and non-temporal. The temporal view is based on the quality or condition of an event concerning itself, for example, the duration of repetition of that particular event. The non-temporal view takes the speaker’s viewpoint or perspective on an individual situation. If the condition is already complete, then ot will be the perfective aspect. In contrast, if the situation or event is ongoing, the perspective is said to be the imperfective aspect; if its continuing, it is said to be a continuing aspect, the end will be the egressive aspect, and repeating will be a habitual or iterative aspect. The key takeaways from these are that the inherent feature of an event is taken to be the temporal view.

In contrast, that involves a speaker’s perspective on a situation is assumed to be the non-temporal view. All arguments involving semantics revolve around the underlying semantics of the situation being described. Does this mean that the aspect is a semantic phenomenon? Or does it modify the English progressive semantically by bringing forward the relationship between events and times?

From past observations on the English progressive, an event presented by progressive is given within a given temporal frame within any time frame. For example, one can express this as follows, where t stands for time that an event (e) happens, a consecutive sentence might be indicating that e asserts that t is properly confined in the framed time. The existence of an event can be more significant than the given or available time. Through various readings, the following facts have been made; (1) the progressive has a metaphysical character, (2) reports actual phenomena, (3) it predicates a particular event while the simple present tense, (1) is habitual, (2) gives the structure of the world in detail, that in its characteristics. The different readings following this issue are as a result of the implications of this contrast. There are various problems that come about as a result of the progressive state it predicates for instance the habituals. The progressivge is not ill-formed as per se, but due to its limitred duration of reading the progressive state, the terms of the implicature is true. If a simple tense is at the singular reading stage,  the progressive form will implicate temporarily due to its explicit dates or locations of the  situation described. Progressive represents an event within a temporal time frame that sorrounds an event. For example

1. Jane was cooking food when Kim arrived.
2. Jane was cooking food at four o’clock.
3. Jane cooked food when Kim arrived.
4. Jane cooked food at three o’clock.

In basic terms, c and d give the time through the adverbial, that is the time of Kim’s arrival, or at three o’clock. The adverbial in this case fall at the beginning of that event, the one that jane is cooking the food. However, the progressive sentences a and b, show the present verb, the continuing verb. That is the time of Kim’s arrival and the three o’clock both align in the time when Jane was cooking the food. This becomes the beginning of the formalizations of the progreesive semantics theory.

It is also possible for one to note the differences in te progressive and non-progressice verb in the present tense. For example,

3. Mary reads the book.
4. Mary is reading the book.

Example (2a) is said to have the habitual reading and does not in any way show that the situation being described is in progress at the time, this statement was uttered. Where as in (2b) the sentence asserts that the action Jane is doing is in progress at the time of the utterance. To answer to this, Goldsmith and Woisetchlaeger attributed an even bigger phenomenological character to the progressive. The basic semantics tend to extend to the present progressive. This happens by the time the statement was uttered to be the framed time and is catered for all through the framing reading. The framed time does not include the framing reading but shows the present progressive.

Also, some predicates do not take the progressive state freely. Some tend to appear or withstand the progressive completely. State predicates are mostly the ones that become the progressive resistant as shown below.

3.

1. John was knowing the question.
2. The cabinet is only containing cooking tools.
3. Jane is owning those four flats.
4. Kim is being tall.

These examples clearly show that some predicates withstand the progressive because they are state predicates which is in a way incompatible with the stages. The true condition for progressive states predicates is a contradictionwhich therefore makes sentences like the ones in example 3 false. The connection between states and progressive resistance show the lack of progressive forms which in turn leads to the state predicates.However , other writers claim that t7he many state predicates will form a progressive which is the tru state of temporary states. This is again in contast with the corresponding simple tense form. The contrast between these two states, that is temporary and permanent can be observed with habitual predications for example, the sentences below:

4

1. The monument is standing in the plaza.
2. The monument stands in the plaza.
3. James is living in London
4. James lives in London
5. Jane is working at Mayhill.
6. Jane works at Mayhill.

Usually, people will take the progressive, a definite tense and contrasting it with the indefinite perfect. Non-specific times are shown by the indefinite forms of sentences while the definite forms reference specific times. The original definite and indefinite should be shown by variances in the numbering. In the present and perfect times, the event times are valued and framed timely depending on the action or event.

When it comes to the imperfective paradox, there are two primary responses to it. (1) is to analyze the progressive as a counterfactual. (2) that the inconsistency is obvious when the predicate is seen in the progressive sentence and is not the same with the predicate correlating to the non-progressive sentence. The elements on this view are said to be invalid. However, the second view might be true in the following ways as discussed below. The two distinct readings are found in the uninflected predicate and are considered ambiguous. This is where the imperfective paradox comes in. the boundless of events is known as the verbal predicates. The telic and atelic bases have various elements. For example, a progressive sentence with an atelic predicate has a reliable non-progressive sentence. However if the progressive sentence has telic predicates, the sentence will be progressive. For example the sentences below illustrate this.

5. Mary was dancing – John danced.
6. Mary will be dancing- Mary will dance.
7. Mary is dancing- Mary will have danced.
8. Mary will be building a ship – Mary will build a ship.
9. Mary is building a ship- Mary will have built a ship.

The different elements will bring about different formulations of semantics. With this, it is possible to come up with telic and atelic sentences that will in turn bring about a paradox. Take into consideration the following examples;

3. John is building a ship
4. John builds a ship.

(2a) cannot be taken as a true fact of statement (2b) because (2a) can be true even when there is no given time even though there is still no time but (2b) will still be true. Here the problem with telic is clear where John be building a ship is true at a given time. Checking this statement will give an even better insight on the interval at which john build the ship is true and whether the ship building will be completed or has already been completed. Similarly this is the same problem one will notice with progressive. For example,

5

1. John build a ship. This statement asserts the existence of a ship building event at a given time. To solve this problem, there are three ways in which one can avoid the entailment of actual event completion. Also, it is possible to change a sentence that has been evaluated inorder to capture the troublesome entailments. This is the most popular approach whereby a progressive predicate that forms a telic predicate like building a ship will not be an inflected version of build a ship but it is a true fact of that process rather than the events. Bennett, partee and parsonsconqured to this view and even included it in their 1978 paper.

There are many ways in which one can solve the many grammatical errors that people make. These are called the seven problems out of many. These include, the imperfective paradox, the impossibility problem, the perspective problem among others. All of these will come up with solutions to problems involving the progressive aspect. To get a better understanding of this, below iss a discussion on the imperfective  paradox by Michael Bennett.

The Michael Bennet Approach: closed and open intervals

This is one of the oldest widespread ideas on the meaning of progressive .it states that progressive conveys in a sentence will refer to events in progress, ie. Events or processes that are yet to be completed. Take for instance this case scenario;

Scenario A: jane stepped onto the street, walked towards the other side and reached the sidewalk.

This scenario can easily be described in a sentence as simple past, the event in progress at the referenced time can also be referred to by a sentence in progressive in this way:

1

1. Jane crossed the street.
2. Jane was crossing the street.

Using the examples, above, you get a very straightforward idea that has been divided into various interval semantics and can even be used in an event for example as an extensive approach, the normality approach or even the continuing approach. All these would be used to show whether as sentence is true or false. However, considering all these approaches, it is possible to get a final answer to the question without compromising or changing the intended meaning of the sentence.Also, the case with perception verbs is taken differently. A sentence like, I see something on the grass are said to be true of current experiences and cannot be said to be habitual. It is however important to note that the pairs will occasionally interchange for a  pre- dispositional predication even when with the perception verbs. This is maybe because of the cognitive experiences that may arise through the functioning of our regular perceptive structure. This is done in a way that simple habits are not and cannot be declared as true experiences. Take the following examples:

1. I perceive something on the grass.
2. I can hear voices.
3. I hear voices.

Through this, you will find that the progressives of psychological states are said to be temporarily located and are of limited duration. The psychological states for the progressive states are reported to be consciously experienced and are sufficiently occurring in periods and can therefore not be said to be progressive. Predicates such as trust and knowledge are stative. This is because one cannot instantiate knowledge or beliefs. This can, however, be done for consciously experienced events.

Bennet stated that the trick to solving imperfective paradox is by answering intervals of time, more of telicity. This would be rather than as a property of events or the bases of actual situations. His assumptions by which he used mainly in solving these problems are as discussed below.

1. Time is represented by a set of numbers that are positive and negative. This means that time has two moments that are intertwined to each other. There is a moment that lies in between them.
2. Assuming that Open intervals and performances show closed intervals show various events, the performance verb phrases will be accurate at both the open and closed intervals. In respect to time and interval, individuals can be in the extended verb phrase or the interval of time.

• If performances are represented by closed intervals, then the true definition of an example like, Jane has left interests to a closed interval as pre-meditated. Jane has left would be a true since it’s at an interlude of time. Jane is the extension of leave while I, is a closed interval.

1. With this, it would be true to explain that jane is leaving. As mentiuoned earlier, jane is an extension of leave at an open interlude and therefore it wouldn’t mean that janewill foprever remain in the leave at a closed interval. Jane was leaving will not include jane has left.
2. Jane is leaving is a true interlude of time. There is an existence of intetval of time. I in this case will be an open interval while jane is the extension of leave at I.

it is difficult to distinguish between the two, that is whether an interval is open or closed but can be equally essay if you use the right method to reach there. Some people tend to think that atelic events occur at open intervals while telic situations occur at closed interludes. What Parsons tried to show here is that Bennett did not give a clear conclusion of telicity. It does not efficiently give the state of telicity as a base of intervals. It is still associated with events that are key to the distinction. For example, take in to consideration a case where a celebrated artist is to give a timed affirmation of the skills he has. He is supposed t draw a caricature of John Silkber in one minute. The observer will use a stopwatch to observe time. The moment that the artists begins his drawing, the observer will start the stopwatch. Take to be the time after one minute is over. After t the artist will have completed drawing the caricature. So, the artist draws the caricature at an interval is true. The hand of the stopwatch that moves and stops immediately after the one minute is over is true. At this point, it would be true to say that the first sentence is telic since it is closed while the second sentence is atelic since it is an open sentence. Bennett’s explanation can be more confusing since for one to understand the true definition of Jane is leaving, they need to understand what it is for Jane is in the extension state of leave at an open interlude. For one to understand this, they need to be informed about the perceptions of the extension of predicates. For example, the extension of run is runners; the extension of red is red things. Therefore Bennett would close this by stating that one will need to understand the notion that extension of a predicate is essential.

The perception that john is in the extension of building a ship at I, the john begins the actual work of building a ship at the beginning of I, all through he will be building at I and he finishes the ship by the end of I. building a ship is true even though he may not build the ship. This will remain so as long as john will remain to be in the extension of build a house in respect to open intervals. Whether he decides to build the house or not is criterial and no proper idea or reason is given for having the inclusion of john in the extension of building the ship at an open interval. The secondary interpretation of Bennett is that the basis involved, john built a ship and john was building a ship. The two centers the analysis on the conclusion that the latter sentence is true. John is the extension of building a ship at an open interval which one would not tell whether it’s true or false. This would be a simple explanation and conclusion of Bennett’s theory on English progressive.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is true to say that the progressive true state of events will always be process basis which is different from the progressive morphology which is only an indicator that a process predicate is present. This is selected as a process predicate and a complement. The progressive does not return a process to a value and therefore not a function. The process predicate as a value is the process of reading telic predicates as an ambiguity connected to the basic predicate. This is where other considerations have been discussed above to allow the process reading of telic predicates. Going back to the earlier used example, build a ship is obscure, that is between the process predicate and an event predicate. A situation is one which exemplifies the first basis does not necessarily have to exemplify the second. John was building a ship this does not show, John built a ship.  This paradox is has already been resolved. The progressive has the semantic as proposed throughout the thesis. This thesis has formed a basis for the semantics for the English perfect progressive. This is a construction that has highly been forgotten in literature. The various origins and meanings of a progressive English can deeply be uprooted using the ways mentioned above. Progressive is indeed an aspect of a perfect simple tense even though they do not have the same characteristics.