Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:36:33.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Cognitive Grammar account of the semantics of the English present progressive1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2013

ASTRID DE WIT  and
FRANK BRISARD
ASTRID DE WIT*
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
FRANK BRISARD*
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
*
Authors' addresses: Department of Linguistics, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium[email protected][email protected]
Authors' addresses: Department of Linguistics, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium[email protected][email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a unified account of the semantics of the English present progressive in the form of a semantic network, basing ourselves on the theoretical principles and analytical tools offered by the theory of Cognitive Grammar, as laid out by Langacker (1987, 1991). The core meaning of the English present progressive, we claim, is to indicate epistemic contingency in the speaker's immediate reality. It thus contrasts with the simple present, which is associated with situations that are construed as structurally belonging to reality. On the basis of a study of the Santa Barbara Corpus of spoken American English, an inventory has been made of the more specific uses of the present progressive, temporal as well as modal. It is shown that each of these uses can be derived from this basic meaning of contingency in immediate reality via a set of conceptual branching principles, in interaction with elements in the context.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 49 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

Parts of the research for this paper have already been reported in De Wit & Brisard (2009). We wish to thank Ron Langacker and three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees for their useful comments on earlier versions of this text. Thanks are also due to the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO) for its financial support of the first author (grant 4740).

References

REFERENCES

Adamczewski, Henri. 1978. BE+ING dans la grammaire de l'anglais contemporain. Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas. 1992. A default, truth conditional semantics for the progressive. Linguistics and Philosophy 15, 463–508.Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1986. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 5–16.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Emile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale, vol. 1, 2nd edn.Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brisard, Frank. 2001. Be going to: An exercise in grounding. Journal of Linguistics 37, 251–285.Google Scholar
Brisard, Frank. 2002a. The English present. In Brisard, (ed.), 251–297.Google Scholar
Brisard, Frank (ed.). 2002b. Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calver, Edward. 1946. The uses of the present tense forms in English. Language 22, 317–325.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter. 2008. The progressive aspect in World Englishes: A corpus-based study. Australian Journal of Linguistics 28, 225–249.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culioli, Antoine. 1990. Pour une linguistique de l'énonciation, vol. 1: Opérations et representations. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Culioli, Antoine. 1999. Pour une linguistique de l'énonciation, vol. 2: Formalisation et opérations de repérage. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
De Wit, Astrid & Brisard, Frank. 2009. Expressions of epistemic contingency in the use of the English present progressive. Papers of the Linguistic Society of Belgium 4. http://webh01.ua.ac.be/linguist/SBKL/sbkl2009/dew2009.pdf (accessed 22 November 2012).Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat, Reed, Susan & Cappelle, Bert. 2006. The grammar of the English verb phrase, vol. 1: The grammar of the English tense system. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1, 33–52.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1975. The stative in the progressive and other essence/accident contrasts. Linguistic Inquiry 6, 579–588.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1977. Toward a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English imperfective progressive. Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 45–77.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague's PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Chafe, Wallace L., Meyer, Charles & Thompson, Sandra A.. 2000. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, part 1. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Emenanjo, E. Nolue. 1987. Elements of modern Igbo grammar: A descriptive approach. Ibadan: University Press.Google Scholar
Furmaniak, Grégory. 2005. The BE+-ING form: Progressive aspect and metonymy. Corela 3. http://corela.edel.univ-poitiers.fr/document.php?id=741 (accessed 1 January 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, Alessandra & Pianesi, Fabio. 1997. Tense and aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John & Woisetschlaeger, Erich. 1982. The logic of the English progressive. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 79–89.Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom. 2003. Present progressive vis-à-vis predication focus in Bantu: A verbal category between semantics and pragmatics. Studies in Language 27.2, 323–360.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1931. A modern English grammar on historical principles, vol. 4. London: Allen & Unwin. [Page number citation from 1954 reprint.]Google Scholar
Joos, Martin. 1964. The English verb: Form and meanings. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2003. Review of Christopher Williams, Progressive and non-progressive aspect in English, 2002. English Language & Linguistics 7, 344–347.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul & Fillmore, Charles J.. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing Y? construction. Language 75, 1–33.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja. 2010. The progressive in Modern English: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization and related changes. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Landman, Fred. 1992. The progressive. Natural Language Semantics 1, 1–32.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1995. The symbolic alternative. In Kardela, Henryk & Persson, Gunnar (eds.), New trends in semantics and lexicography, 89–118. Umeå: Swedish Science Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2001. The English present tense. English Language & Linguistics 5, 251–273.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2002. Deixis and subjectivity. In Brisard, (ed.), 1–28.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2011. The English present: Temporal coincidence vs. epistemic immediacy. In Patard, Adeline & Brisard, Frank (eds.), Cognitive approaches to tense, aspect and epistemic modality, 45–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Larreya, Paul. 1999. BE+-ING est-il un marqueur d'aspect? Anglophonia 6, 135–150.Google Scholar
Lascarides, Alexandra. 1988. A formal semantic analysis of the progressive. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. Meaning and the English verb. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth. 1992. Die Verbalkategorien des Deutschen. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ljung, Magnus. 1980. Reflections on the English progressive. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2004. Type shifting in Construction Grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15, 1–67.Google Scholar
Mindt, Dieter. 2000. An empirical grammar of the English verb system. Berlin: Cornelsen.Google Scholar
Núñez-Pertejo, Paloma. 2004. The progressive in the history of English. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1989. The English verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul. 1998. The progressive in modal semantics. Language 74, 760–787.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman: London.Google Scholar
Rydén, Mats. 1997. On the panchronic core meaning of the English progressive. In Nevalainen, Terttu & Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.), To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen, 419–429. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Scheffer, Johannes. 1975. The progressive in English. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In Cole, Peter & Morgan, Jerry (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, 59–82. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1997. The parameter of aspect, 2nd edn.Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Swart, Henriette de. 1998. Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16, 347–385.Google Scholar
Tharaud, François. 2008. Monosémie et diversité des emplois: Le cas de BE+V-ing en anglais. In Lauze, Audrey, Barceló, Gérard-Joan & Patard, Adeline (eds.), De la langue au discours: L'un et le multiple dans les outils grammaticaux, 83–197. Montpellier: PULM.Google Scholar
Twaddell, Freeman W. 1960. The English verb auxiliaries. Providence, RI: Brown.Google Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie. 2009. The grammar of complement-taking mental predicate constructions in present-day spoken British English. Ph.D. dissertation, Ghent University.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66, 143–160. [Reprinted in Zeno Vendler, Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967.]Google Scholar
Wekker, Herman C. 1976. The expression of future time in contemporary British English. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Williams, Christopher. 2002. Non-progressive and progressive aspect in English. Fasano: Schena.Google Scholar
Wright, Susan. 1994. The mystery of the modal progressive. In Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 467–485. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar