Volume 13, Issue 6 (2023)
LRR 2023, 13(6): 225-259 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Valipour M, Bahrami F. Perfect Aspect or Anterior Tense? Rethinking of Aspect in Persian. LRR 2023; 13 (6) :225-259
URL: http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-49554-en.html
URL: http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-49554-en.html
1- Assistant Professor, Department of Persian Language and Literature, Faculty of Letters and Human Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University , m_valipour@sbu.ac.ir
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Letters and Human Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Letters and Human Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University
Abstract: (1894 Views)
Present- and past perfect paradigms are commonly thought of as having the perfect aspect. Examining the concept of tense and aspect along with their definitions, the present study argues that what is often referred to as the perfect aspect in Persian is essentially a temporal concept. Taking into consideration the reference-, event-, and speech points, the study shows that the reference point comes necessarily after the event point in the case of the present- and the past perfect as well as their variants. In other words, this indicates the continuing relevance of a previous situation. Since this concept does not entail the completeness of the event, referring to it as “perfect” would be inaccurate. For this reason, the present study proposes the term the anterior tense as a substitute for the perfect aspect. The authors emphasize the significance of the reference situation in determination of grammatical tenses by referring to the function of temporal adverbs and participles. Participles, as independent words, are present in the structures of deverbal adjectives, perfect verbs, passive verbs, complex predicates, and attributive expressions. In all these functions, the morpheme of “-te/-de” represents the anterior tense. Reexamining the previous approaches, the present study reveals that tense, in addition to representing the reference and speech situations in the form of the trichotomy of present/past/future, represents the reference and event situations as well. In other words, tense of a verb encompasses both the trichotomy of past/present/future and the dichotomy of anterior/non-anterior.
1. Introduction
Tense is a linear notion. Anteriority, synchronicity and posteriority of the event point (E) in relation to the speech point (S) on this line create tense trichotomy (past, present, future). It is quite clear that this division does not account for the difference in many constructions; for example, the distinction between simple past and imperfective past, or the difference between imperfective past and past continuous, or the difference between simple past and quotative past (present perfect). The main question of the current article focuses on the latter distinction. Most linguists have considered the distinction in aspect, and they believe that the quotative past has a perfect aspect.
The current research claims the distinction in Persian cannot be considered an aspectual one and shows that the morphemes that are present in the perfect constructions express a kind of tense concept which we have called anterior tense. Moreover, we will try to identify the trace of these morphemes in deverbal adjectives.
2. Literature Review
It seems that the term quotative past in the meaning we presumed, was first used in Dabestɑn-e Parsi by Habib Esfahani (1906). Evidently, grammarians have studied quotative past and distant past separately and have not noticed their similarity with respect to the so-called perfect aspect. Only Lazard, who adopted a comparative approach in order to explain these constructions, considered distant past to be the past of quotative past (2010: 186). Furthermore, in case of aspect and tense, the past subjunctive is similar to quotative past and their difference is solely in terms of mood. Most grammarians have not studied the two with their relation to each other. But Lazard considered past subjunctive to be the subjunctive of quotative past (2010: 189). Sadeghi & Arzhang (1979), and following them, Haghshenas et al. (2008) have also mentioned this point. Farshidvard (2003: 405) has also pointed it out.
Concerning grammatical aspect in Persian and especially about perfect constructions, the most important studies are Darzi & Jafari (2020) and Veisi Hesar & Sharif (2019). Following Declerck (2006, 2015), Veisi Hesar & Sharif (2019) divide the time axis into two fields of past and present. The present field is itself divided into three zones. Present tense zone refers to the part of present field which corresponds to moment zero (now). Pre-present zone has begun before moment zero and continues to its vicinity. Post-present zone starts just after moment zero. The past zone is situated before the pre-present zone. Past, pre-present, present and post-present zones constitute past tense, present perfect, present, and future, respectively. This view is problematic. Firstly, delimiting the fields is totally vague; e.g. the limits of the pre-present zone are blur and it is unclear what separates it from past tense. Secondly, this analysis cannot provide a consistent analysis of the property shared by the perfect constructions. Based on this analysis, past perfect is a relative tense, while present perfect is an absolute one. Thirdly, in order to answer the question of the difference between present perfect and simple past, these scholars, following Declerck (2006) declare that present perfect is situated in the pre-present zone which is in the vicinity of and in contact with moment zero, while past tense is completely separate from moment zero and thus expresses completeness and temporal distance. Therefore, the difference between these two tenses… can be explained by their proximity or remoteness from moment zero (2019: 19). Nevertheless, In Persian, simple past has a usage which is in stark opposition to this claim. In fact, present perfect cannot be used to refer to an action that is done at the very moment of speaking and simple past is what must be used.
3. Methodology
We examined the most significant achievements in describing the perfect constructions in Persian. In Theoretical Basis, chiefly based on Comrie (1976) and its followers, we considered aspect and its types, and based on Reichenbach (1947) and Hornstein (1993), the role of R in determining tenses was recognized. Then, we studied aspect and its types in Persian and the perfect constructions, and it was shown what the morphemes representing the so-called perfect concept are and how they interact with other morphemes which express tense.
4. Results
Tense is determined based on the position of R, E, and S on timeline. First, the relation between E and R, and then the relation between R and S is determined and the result shows the relative position of these three points to each other. There are specific morphemes in Persian which encode these two relations and their aggregation determines the tense label of a construction. Absence of the past marker morpheme “-t/d” means the simultaneity of S and R (present tense), its presence means R is before S (past tense), and presence of the morpheme “xɑh” (as an auxiliary) signifies S before R (future tense).
Table 1.
Morphemes Expressing the Relation of S and R
In the table, some tenses traditionally labeled as “past” are here considered present. Note that the participle consists of the two morphemes of the stem and “-te/de”. The latter morpheme expresses the relation between R and E. If E is before R, it signifies the anterior tense and if these two points are simultaneous, it expresses the unmarked state for which we use the term non-anterior tense. Note that based on the relation between E and R in Persian, we come to a tense dichotomy: One in which E is before R called anterior, and the other in which E and R are simultaneous and is called non-anterior. Nevertheless, if Persian like English had a special construction for future, i.e. if R could be before E, then we would have a trichotomy: anterior, simultaneous, and posterior.
Table 2.
Morphemes Expressing the Relation between E and R
Now, we must answer the question why in perfect tense constructions, we considered the morpheme “-te/de” to express the relation between E and R. It seems that this morpheme, irrespective of whether it is used in the verb or not, signifies that E is anterior to R. In fact, adjectives such as “dɑneshɑmuxte” (graduate) signify perfectness, because in their construction, exactly like that of anterior tenses, E is before R. Note that in these adjectives, the relation between R and S, and as a result, the relation between E and S are unclear.
In general, E before R represented by the suffix “-de/te” appears in these constructions: 1. In adjectives such as “dɑneshɑmux-te”, “mor-de”, “gandi-de”, etc.; 2. In the so-called perfect constructions such as quotative past, distant past, quotative past continuous, etc. 3. In passive sentences; 4. In the so-called past participle clauses.
What we said here, clearly shows the incorrectness of claims made by scholars such as Farshidvard (2003: 380), or Hornstein (1993) who consider the auxiliary to signify perfectness. It is clear that the participle, whether used in a verb or outside it, has this meaning. The auxiliary in these constructions includes a morpheme which determines the relations between E and S.
As is shown in table 3, imperfective anterior present, continuous anterior present, and anterior present subjunctive constructions have a tense exactly the same as that of anterior present, since their difference with anterior present is in concepts unrelated to tense, i.e. aspect and mood. The difference between anterior past and anterior present is in the relation between S and R. In any case, double anterior present is slightly different. It is primarily formed as anterior past, i.e. E is located first in relation to an R in past, and then in relation to a secondary R in present. In other words, the E in this construction, in addition to being related to a posterior situation in past (R1), is still relevant to now (R2).
Table 3.
Representation of Anterior Tense
5. Conclusion
By considering R next to S and E, we showed how time concepts are grammaticalized in Persian. Contrary to common approaches to tense, the trichotomy of past, present, and future is not determined by the relation between E and S. These tenses are determined by the relative anteriority or posteriority or simultaneity of S and R. Beside this trichotomy, based on the relation between R and E, tenses are divided into two groups of anterior and non-anterior. In most previous views, this notion has been considered a type of aspect and usually labeled as perfect aspect. However, as we elaborated, it cannot be an aspect, since the position of situations on the time axis has nothing to do with aspect which relates to the internal state of an event. Therefore, the common characteristic of all perfect constructions is that R is before E which is grammaticalized in the morpheme “-te/de”. This morpheme is used in participles which are used in verbs such as past perfect and present perfect (and its types), passive verbs, past participle clauses, etc. and in all cases expresses this meaning.
1. Introduction
Tense is a linear notion. Anteriority, synchronicity and posteriority of the event point (E) in relation to the speech point (S) on this line create tense trichotomy (past, present, future). It is quite clear that this division does not account for the difference in many constructions; for example, the distinction between simple past and imperfective past, or the difference between imperfective past and past continuous, or the difference between simple past and quotative past (present perfect). The main question of the current article focuses on the latter distinction. Most linguists have considered the distinction in aspect, and they believe that the quotative past has a perfect aspect.
The current research claims the distinction in Persian cannot be considered an aspectual one and shows that the morphemes that are present in the perfect constructions express a kind of tense concept which we have called anterior tense. Moreover, we will try to identify the trace of these morphemes in deverbal adjectives.
2. Literature Review
It seems that the term quotative past in the meaning we presumed, was first used in Dabestɑn-e Parsi by Habib Esfahani (1906). Evidently, grammarians have studied quotative past and distant past separately and have not noticed their similarity with respect to the so-called perfect aspect. Only Lazard, who adopted a comparative approach in order to explain these constructions, considered distant past to be the past of quotative past (2010: 186). Furthermore, in case of aspect and tense, the past subjunctive is similar to quotative past and their difference is solely in terms of mood. Most grammarians have not studied the two with their relation to each other. But Lazard considered past subjunctive to be the subjunctive of quotative past (2010: 189). Sadeghi & Arzhang (1979), and following them, Haghshenas et al. (2008) have also mentioned this point. Farshidvard (2003: 405) has also pointed it out.
Concerning grammatical aspect in Persian and especially about perfect constructions, the most important studies are Darzi & Jafari (2020) and Veisi Hesar & Sharif (2019). Following Declerck (2006, 2015), Veisi Hesar & Sharif (2019) divide the time axis into two fields of past and present. The present field is itself divided into three zones. Present tense zone refers to the part of present field which corresponds to moment zero (now). Pre-present zone has begun before moment zero and continues to its vicinity. Post-present zone starts just after moment zero. The past zone is situated before the pre-present zone. Past, pre-present, present and post-present zones constitute past tense, present perfect, present, and future, respectively. This view is problematic. Firstly, delimiting the fields is totally vague; e.g. the limits of the pre-present zone are blur and it is unclear what separates it from past tense. Secondly, this analysis cannot provide a consistent analysis of the property shared by the perfect constructions. Based on this analysis, past perfect is a relative tense, while present perfect is an absolute one. Thirdly, in order to answer the question of the difference between present perfect and simple past, these scholars, following Declerck (2006) declare that present perfect is situated in the pre-present zone which is in the vicinity of and in contact with moment zero, while past tense is completely separate from moment zero and thus expresses completeness and temporal distance. Therefore, the difference between these two tenses… can be explained by their proximity or remoteness from moment zero (2019: 19). Nevertheless, In Persian, simple past has a usage which is in stark opposition to this claim. In fact, present perfect cannot be used to refer to an action that is done at the very moment of speaking and simple past is what must be used.
3. Methodology
We examined the most significant achievements in describing the perfect constructions in Persian. In Theoretical Basis, chiefly based on Comrie (1976) and its followers, we considered aspect and its types, and based on Reichenbach (1947) and Hornstein (1993), the role of R in determining tenses was recognized. Then, we studied aspect and its types in Persian and the perfect constructions, and it was shown what the morphemes representing the so-called perfect concept are and how they interact with other morphemes which express tense.
4. Results
Tense is determined based on the position of R, E, and S on timeline. First, the relation between E and R, and then the relation between R and S is determined and the result shows the relative position of these three points to each other. There are specific morphemes in Persian which encode these two relations and their aggregation determines the tense label of a construction. Absence of the past marker morpheme “-t/d” means the simultaneity of S and R (present tense), its presence means R is before S (past tense), and presence of the morpheme “xɑh” (as an auxiliary) signifies S before R (future tense).
Table 1.
Morphemes Expressing the Relation of S and R
| R___S | R & S simultaneous | S___R |
| + past affix | - past affix | - past effix + xɑh |
| Past tense | Present tense | Future tense |
In the table, some tenses traditionally labeled as “past” are here considered present. Note that the participle consists of the two morphemes of the stem and “-te/de”. The latter morpheme expresses the relation between R and E. If E is before R, it signifies the anterior tense and if these two points are simultaneous, it expresses the unmarked state for which we use the term non-anterior tense. Note that based on the relation between E and R in Persian, we come to a tense dichotomy: One in which E is before R called anterior, and the other in which E and R are simultaneous and is called non-anterior. Nevertheless, if Persian like English had a special construction for future, i.e. if R could be before E, then we would have a trichotomy: anterior, simultaneous, and posterior.
Table 2.
Morphemes Expressing the Relation between E and R
| E___R | E & R simultaneous |
| + te/de | - te/de |
| Anterior tense | Non-anterior tense |
Now, we must answer the question why in perfect tense constructions, we considered the morpheme “-te/de” to express the relation between E and R. It seems that this morpheme, irrespective of whether it is used in the verb or not, signifies that E is anterior to R. In fact, adjectives such as “dɑneshɑmuxte” (graduate) signify perfectness, because in their construction, exactly like that of anterior tenses, E is before R. Note that in these adjectives, the relation between R and S, and as a result, the relation between E and S are unclear.
In general, E before R represented by the suffix “-de/te” appears in these constructions: 1. In adjectives such as “dɑneshɑmux-te”, “mor-de”, “gandi-de”, etc.; 2. In the so-called perfect constructions such as quotative past, distant past, quotative past continuous, etc. 3. In passive sentences; 4. In the so-called past participle clauses.
What we said here, clearly shows the incorrectness of claims made by scholars such as Farshidvard (2003: 380), or Hornstein (1993) who consider the auxiliary to signify perfectness. It is clear that the participle, whether used in a verb or outside it, has this meaning. The auxiliary in these constructions includes a morpheme which determines the relations between E and S.
As is shown in table 3, imperfective anterior present, continuous anterior present, and anterior present subjunctive constructions have a tense exactly the same as that of anterior present, since their difference with anterior present is in concepts unrelated to tense, i.e. aspect and mood. The difference between anterior past and anterior present is in the relation between S and R. In any case, double anterior present is slightly different. It is primarily formed as anterior past, i.e. E is located first in relation to an R in past, and then in relation to a secondary R in present. In other words, the E in this construction, in addition to being related to a posterior situation in past (R1), is still relevant to now (R2).
Table 3.
Representation of Anterior Tense
| Constructions with Anterior Tense | Example | S & R | E & R | Representation | |
| 1 | anterior present | rafte am | present | anterior | E__S,R |
| 2 | imperfective anterior present | mirafte ast | present | anterior | E__S,R |
| 3 | anterior present continuous | dɑshte [ast] mirafte [ast] | present | anterior | E__S,R |
| 4 | anterior present subjunctive | rafte bɑshad | present | anterior | E__S,R |
| 5 | anterior past | rafte bud | past | anterior | E__R__S |
| 6 | double anterior present | rafte bude ast | present | anterior | E__R1__S,R2 |
5. Conclusion
By considering R next to S and E, we showed how time concepts are grammaticalized in Persian. Contrary to common approaches to tense, the trichotomy of past, present, and future is not determined by the relation between E and S. These tenses are determined by the relative anteriority or posteriority or simultaneity of S and R. Beside this trichotomy, based on the relation between R and E, tenses are divided into two groups of anterior and non-anterior. In most previous views, this notion has been considered a type of aspect and usually labeled as perfect aspect. However, as we elaborated, it cannot be an aspect, since the position of situations on the time axis has nothing to do with aspect which relates to the internal state of an event. Therefore, the common characteristic of all perfect constructions is that R is before E which is grammaticalized in the morpheme “-te/de”. This morpheme is used in participles which are used in verbs such as past perfect and present perfect (and its types), passive verbs, past participle clauses, etc. and in all cases expresses this meaning.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |