������������� ��� ��������������

�����������������������������

���� �� �� �������������

�������� ��������������

���������

!"#!"!##$

���

��������%�&��'����������()

Two types of aspect

� Smith (1997)Situation Type Aspect (Aktionsart)Viewpoint Aspect

� “Viewpoint aspect gives temporal perspective to a sentence. More subtly, situation aspect also involves point of view.” Smith (op.cit.: 1)

� The essential distinction between them seems to be:Lexical vs. Grammatical.

System of situation type (aktionsart) in Odia

� Odia marks situation types with a closed set of grammatical auxiliaries.� There is no study so far which theoretically considers

the relevance of situation types for Odia.� The fact has gone unnoticed in earlier studies on Odia.

Stative auxiliary

(1) kukura-Ta: so -i -rah -i-(a)ch -ø -idog-class sleep-vs-state-vs-cop -pres-agr‘The dog is (in the state of) sleeping.’

(2) *kukura-Ta: goTe ha:Da coba:-i-rah-i-(a)ch-ø-idog-class one bone bite -vs-state-vs-cop-pres-agr

‘The dog is (in the state of) biting a bone.’

Activity auxiliary

(3) *kukura-Ta: so -i -la:g -i-(a)ch -ø -idog-class sleep-vs-act -vs-cop -pres-agr‘The dog is (in the act of) sleeping.’

(4) kukura-Ta: goTe ha:Da coba:-i-la:g -i-(a)ch-ø-idog-class one bone bite-vs-act-vs-cop-pres-agr‘The dog is (in the act of) biting a bone.’

Process auxiliary(5) saka:La-Thu bandi jaNa-ka ghaNa: pel-i-la:g-i-(a)ch-ø-i

morning-ablat prisoner class-def crusher push-vs-act-vs-cop-pres-agr

‘Since morning, the prisoner is (in the act of) pushing the crusher.’

(6) ?*ka:li-Thu jangala-Ta: poD -i -la:g -i -(a)ch -ø -iyesterday-ablat jungle-class burn-vs-act -vs-cop -pres-agr*‘Since yesterday the jungle is (in the act of) burning.’

(7) ka:li -Thu jangala-Ta: poD -i -ca:l -i -(a)ch -ø -iyesterday-ablat jungle-class burn-vs-proc-vs-cop -pres-agr‘Since yesterday the jungle is (in the process of) burning.’

Action as event but not vice versa

(8) saka:La-Thu bandi jaNa-ka ghaNa: pel-i-la:g-i-(a)ch-ø-imorning-ablat prisoner class-def crusher push-vs-act-vs-cop-pres-agr‘Since morning, the prisoner is (in the act of) pushing the crusher.’

(9) saka:La-Thu bandi jaNa-ka ghaNa: pel-i-ca:l-i-(a)ch-ø-imorning-ablat prisoner class-def crusher push-vs-proc-vs-cop-pres-agr‘Since morning, the prisoner is (in the process of) pushing the crusher.’

� Although the language allows the process reading of the activity it still keeps them grammatically distinct, as evident from (5)-(8).

Accomplishment auxiliary

� Completive sa:r (finish) as accomplishment 10) ra:ju bahi-Ta: paDh-i-sa:r-i-(a)ch-ø-i

Raju book-class read-vs-finish-vs-cop-pres-agr

‘Raju has finished reading the book.’11) anDa:-Ta: sijh -i -sa:r -i -(a)ch -ø -i

egg -class boil-vs-finish-vs -cop -pres -agr‘The egg has already boiled.’

Situation-type auxiliaries and their related aspect features in Od�ia

(12) rah (stay) Stateca:l (walk/move/continue) Processla:g (engage/continue/stick) Activitysa:r (finish) Accomplishment

Structure for the situation type

(13) v´ (situation-type)-la:g VS (verb subordinator)

-i vpsubj (the prisoner) v´(cause)

VPpel (push) Obj

ghaNa: (crusher)

� I adopt the left-branching structure, which gives the mirror image of the sequence of the morphemes in the VP.

Viewpoint aspects

� Earlier analyses, e.g. Nayak (1987), Mohanty (1992) and Sahoo (2001) identify two aspects for Odia. They are:Imperfective (marked with the morpheme -u)Perfective (marked with the morpheme -i)

� Smith (1997) labels imperfective and perfective aspects as viewpoint aspects.

Imperfective vs. Perfective:A minimal contrastive pair in present

(14) ra:dha: ma:cha kha:-u -(a)ch -ø -iRadha fish eat -impf -cop-pres-agr‘Radha is eating fish.’

(15) ra:dha: ma:cha kha:-i -(a)ch -ø -iRadha fish eat -pf -cop-pres-agr‘Radha has eaten fish.’

Imperfective vs. Perfective:A minimal contrastive pair in past

(16) ra:dha: ma:cha kha -u -th -il -a:Radha fish eat -impf-cop-past-agr‘Radha was eating fish.’

(17) ra:dha: ma:cha kha -i -th -il -a:Radha fish eat -pf-cop-past-agr‘Radha had eaten fish.

The imperfective: It goes with accomplishments

(18) a:ji-ka:li ra:dha: ma:cha kha:-u -(a)ch -ø -itoday-tomorrow Radha fish eat-impf-cop -pres-agr

‘These days Radha is eating fish.’(19) pila:-din-e ra:dha: ma:cha kha:-u -th -il -a:

child-day-loc Radha fish eat-impf-cop-past-agr

‘In the childhood Radha was eating fish.’

The imperfective: It goes with processes

(20) pruthibi surjya ca:ri-paT-e ghur -u -(a)ch -ø -iEarth sun four-side-loc revolve-impf-cop-pres-agr‘The Earth is revolving around the sun.’

(21) goda:bari bha:rata-ra pascima-ru purba-ku bah-u-(ach)-ø-iGodabari India-gen west-ablat east-acc flow-impf-cop-pres-agr

The (river) Godabari is flowing from India’s west to the east.’

The imperfective: It goes with activities

(22) ra:ju goTe ghara khoj -u -(a)ch -ø -iRaju one house look for-impf-cop-pres-agr‘Raju is looking for a house.’

(23) kukura-Ta: goTe ha:Da coba: -u -(a)ch -ø -idog-class one bone bite-impf -cop -pres-agr‘The dog is biting a bone.’

The imperfective: It does not go with states

(24) *se murti-Ta: goTe masa:la dhar-u-(a)ch-ø-idis statue-class one torch hold-impf-cop-pres-agr

‘That statue is holding a torch.’(25) se murti-Ta: goTe masa:la dhar-i-(a)ch-ø-i

dis statue-class one torch hold-pf-cop-pres-agr

‘That statue is holding a torch.’

Aspect difference as sense difference between verbs

(26) *se murti-Ta: goTe masa:la dhar-u-(a)ch-ø-idis statue-class one torch hold-impf-cop -pres-agr‘That statue is holding a torch.’

(27) pila:-Ti goTie kanki dhar-u-(a)ch-ø-ichild-calss one dragonfly catch-impf-cop -pres-agr‘The child is catching a dragonfly.’/*The child is holding a dragonfly. (Process/Accomplishment)

� The verb dhar (hold/catch) has different senses in (26) and (27); (27) indirectly supports that imperfective does not go with the stative verbs.

Some lexically ambiguous verbs� Some lexically ambiguous verbs:

cã:h (be awake/look at/gaze at)dhar (hold/catch)ja:N (know/realize/understand/learn)paD (lie/fall)...

� Their sense difference depends on their choice of different aspects.

� They have process or accomplishment sense with the imperfective.

� They have stative sense with perfective.

Imperfective as [+Dynamic]:A summary

� The imperfective -u goes with accomplishments, processes and activities.

� But, it does not go with states.� It implies that it has an underlying aspectual feature, which

is common to accomplishments, processes and activities; and that feature is in opposition with an essential feature of states.

� It seems that the underlying function of the imperfective -uin Odia is to mark the [+Dynamic] feature, which is in binary opposition with the [-Dynamic] feature, which marks the state.

Problems withthe perfective reading of –i

� The morpheme –i, which is analysed as the perfective marker in earlier studies, does not have the perfective sense in many contexts; such as:

When governed by the copular auxiliary

(28) singha-Ti so -i -(a)ch -ø -ilion-class sleep-vs-cop -pres-agr‘The lion is sleeping.’

When governed by modal auxiliary

(29) a:me-ma:ne se swara suN-i-pa:r -u -th -il -uwe -class dis voice hear-vs-mod-impf-cop-past-agr‘We were being able to hear that voice.’

(30) a:me-ma:ne se swara suN-i-pa:r -i -th -il -uwe -class dis voice hear-vs-mod-pf-cop-past-agr‘We had been able to hear that voice.’

When governed by light verbs

(31) dipa-Ta: libh -i -ja:-u -th -il -a:candle-class extinguish-vs-go-impf-cop-past-agr

‘The candle was getting extinguished.’(32) dipa-Ta: libh -i -ja:-i -th -il -a:

candle-class extinguish-vs-go-pf-cop-past-agr

‘The candle had got extinguished.’

When governed by situation type auxiliaries

(37) kukura-Ta: so -i -rah -i -(a)ch -ø -idog-class sleep-vs-state-vs-cop -pres-agr‘The dog is (in the state of) sleeping.’

(38) kukura-Ta: goTe ha:Da coba:-i -la:g-i -(a)ch -ø -idog-class one bone bite -vs-act -vs-cop -pres-agr‘The dog is (in the act of) biting a bone.’

(39) ka:li -Thu jangala-Ta: poD -i -ca:l-i -(a)ch -ø -iyesterday-ablat jungle-class burn-vs-proc-vs-cop-pres-agr‘Since yesterday the jungle is (in the process of) burning.’

(40) ra:ju bahi-Ta: paDh-i -sa:r -i -(a)ch -ø -iRaju book-class read -vs-finish-vs-cop -pres-agr‘Raju has finished reading the book.’

Imperfective does not always occur where the so called perfective can

(33) *a:me-ma:ne se swara suN -u -pa:r -u -th -il -uwe -class dis voice hear-impf-mod-impf-cop-past-agr

(34) *a:me-ma:ne se swara suN -u -pa:r -i -th -il -uwe-class dis voice hear-impf-mod-vs-cop-past-agr

(35) *dipa-Ta: libh -u -ja: -u -th -il -a:candle-class extinguish-impf-go-impf-cop-past-agr

(36) *dipa-Ta: libh -u -ja: -i -th -il -a:candle-class extinguish-impf-go-vs-cop-past-agr

The morpheme –i as conjunctive participle

(41) ra:ju naDia-Ta:-ku [PRO bha:ng -i] kor -il-a:Raju coconut-class-acc [PRO break -vs] scrape-past-agr‘Raju having broken the coconut scraped it.’

(42) naDia:-Ta: [PRO gacha-ru paD-i] gaD-i-a:s-il-a:coconut-class [PRO tree-ablat fall-vs] roll-vs-come-past-agr‘The coconut having dropped from the tree came rolling.’

� It indicates functions like: completion of the event as in (41); the manner function of the event as in (42). cf. Dwarikesh (1971) and (Masica 1991).

The challenge posed bythe morpheme -i

� Thus, there are a number of facts which suggest that the analysis of the morpheme -i as the perfective marker is too simplistic and misleading. The morpheme -i can occur in different positions in the verb phrase with different functions.

� Any attempt to explain the morpheme -i has to decide:� Whether the language has homophonous -is or,� if it has a unified underlying function, and its different functions

are its conditional variants.� In fact, Sahoo (2001: 85-87) gives the former perspective;

but there is no analysis so far in favour of the latter.

A Unifying Analysis of -i� The morpheme –i does not have a single semantic sense.

Thus, its function seems to be simply syntactic.� Syntactically, its basic function seems to be a default verb

subordinator (vs), which, when marked on a lower verb, simply indicates that the lower verb needs some more verbal feature to be merged such that the verbal feature can govern it. This suggests that -i is not a real governor. This analysis of -i is consistent with its behaviour in all positions wherever it occurs between two verbal elements.

� However, the different aspectual functions ascribed to it in the descriptive studies follow from the inherent aspectual nature of the verbs and the sequences they form.

Sequence of event and state:The perfective relation

(43) ra:dha: ma:cha kha: -i -(a)ch -ø -iRadha fish eat -vs-cop -pres-agr‘Radha has eaten fish.’

Sequence of state and state:The stative relation

(44) singha-Ti so -i -(a)ch -ø -ilion-class sleep-vs-cop -pres-agr‘The lion is sleeping.’

As a simple verb subordinator with non copular auxiliaries

(45) kukura-Ta: so -i -rah -i -(a)ch -ø -idog-class sleep-vs-state-vs-cop -pres-agr‘The dog is (in the state of) sleeping.’

(46) a:me-ma:ne se swara suN -i -pa:r -i -th -il -uwe -class dis voice hear-vs-mod-vs-cop-past-agr‘We had been able to hear that voice.’

(47) dipa-Ta: libh -i -ja: -i -th -il -a:candle-class extinguish-vs-go-vs-cop-past-agr‘The candle had got extinguished.’

Two types of aspectual relationbetween events

� If two events are juxtaposed they are either in a sequence or concomitant.

Sequence of events and perfective relation

� If they are in a sequence, as they are in (41), their event boundaries have to be discrete; and therefore, one has to be complete with relation to the other.

� Thus, the default subordinator –i which is just syntactically present in a verb sequence seems to indicate the sequential function and the completion of an event with relation to the other.

� In fact, these two functions are the two sides of the same coin— the event sequence.

Concomitance of events and manner relation

� On the other hand, if two events are concomitant one must have the manner function for the other.

(48) naDia:-Ta: gaD-i a:s -il -a:coconut-class roll-vs come-past-agr‘The coconut came rolling.’

Manner relation and verb reduplication

49) naDia:-Ta: gaD-i gaD-i a:s -il -a:coconut-class roll-vs roll-vs come-past-agr‘The coconut came rolling.’

� The verb gaD (roll) is reduplicated to indicate its manner function.

No reduplication with achievement verbs

(50) naDia: -Ta: chiTik -i -a:s -il -a:coconut-class deflect-vs-come-past-agr‘The coconut came deflected.’

(51) *naDia:-Ta: chiTik -i chiTik-i -a:s -il -a:coconut-class deflect-vs deflect-vs-come-past-agr‘The coconut came deflected.’

Achievement verbs and the fuzzy relation

� It is a bit fuzzy if the achievement verb chiTik (deflect) in (50) has a sequential relation or a concomitant relation with a:s (come).

� In the case of a sequential relation, the verb chiTik (deflect) simply denotes the change of direction of the motion; and the motion verb a:s (come) is not taken as an instantaneous achievement; the sequential reading is more clear in the case: something having deflected went a long way.

� In the case of a sequential relation, the verb not being reduplicated is predictable.� However, in the case of a concomitant relation, chiTik (deflect) denotes a

movement; that is, to deflect is to move (in a deviated way). The motion verb a:s(come) is understood as an instantaneous achievement too. So, chiTik (deflect) and the motion verb a:s (come) are concomitant.

� Then how is the concomitance of events indicated in the context of non-reduplicated achievement verbs?

� The verbs in (50) take a single theta role (theme); this spatially restricts the events to the physical space of the theta role (theme).

� Further, the temporal duration being instantaneous for the associated events they are temporally restricted too. These facts indicate their spatio-temporal compression, hence their concomitance.

Viewpoint and Other Functional Features

Agrs (52)-a: Tense

-il/-ø/-ib Cop[±realis]-ach/-th Viewpoint Aspect

-u Situation-type-la:g VS

-i VPsubj (dog) V´

coba: (bite) Objha:Da (bone) VS

Interaction between situation-types and viewpoints

� The morpheme –u per se indicates the [+Dynamic] nature of a situation; so it bears ambiguity for all the situation types to which [+Dynamic] is applicable.

� However, in order to specify the exact situation type the language uses the situation type auxiliaries.

� This suggests that the situation type auxiliaries are not obligatory in the language and their basic function is to make the exact situation type of the main verb explicit and unambiguous.

� Once, the exact situation type feature is given by the corresponding auxiliaries, the gross [+Dynamic] feature marked by -u is redundant. Therefore, the morpheme –u does not occur in the verb phrase if the situation type aspect is overtly given. The fact is illustrated in the following sentences:

State without overt viewpoint

(53) murti-Ta: goTe masa:la dhar-i-rah-i-(a)ch-ø-istatue-class one torch hold-vs-state-vs-cop -pres-agr‘The statue is (in the state of) holding a torch.’

b. *murti-Ta: goTe masa:la dhar-i-rah-u-(a)ch-ø-istatue-class one torch hold-vs-state-impf-cop-pres-agr

‘The statue is (in the state of) holding a torch.’

Activitywithout overt viewpoint

(54) a. ra:dha: masala: ba:T -i -la:g-i -(a)ch -ø -iRadha spices grind-vs -act-vs-cop -pres-agr‘Radha is (in the act of) grinding spices.’

b. *ra:dha: masala: ba:T -i -la:g -u -(a)ch -ø -iRadha spices grind-vs-act-impf-cop -pres-agr‘Radha is (in the act of) grinding spices.’

Processwithout overt viewpoint

(55) a. ka:li-Thu nai-Ta: badh-i-ca:l-i-(a)ch-ø-iyesterday-ablat river-class swell-vs-proc-vs-cop -pres-agr‘Since yesterday the river is (in the process) of swelling.’

b. *ka:li-Thu nai-Ta: badh-i-ca:l-u-(a)ch-ø-iyesterday-ablat river-class swell-vs-proc-impf-cop-pres-agr

‘Since yesterday the river is (in the process of) swelling.’

Accomplishmentwithout overt viewpoint

(56) a. ra:ju ghara-Ta: toL-i-sa:r-i-(a)ch-ø-iRaju house-class build-vs-finish-vs-cop -pres-agr

‘Raju has finished building the house.’b. *ra:ju ghara-Ta: toL-i-sa:r-u-(a)ch-ø-i

Raju house-class build-vs-finish-impf-cop-pres-agr

Complex situations andthe -u as a dynamic process

(57) dina beL-e kukura-Ta: a:ma pinDa:-upare so-i-rah-u-(a)ch-ø-i

day time-loc dog-class our veranda-on sleep-vs-state-impf-cop-pres-agr

‘In the day time the dog is sleeping on our veranda.’(58) PRO ha:Da khanD-e pa:-ile kukura-Ta: ta:-ku coba:-i-la:g-u-(a)ch-ø-i

PRO bone piece-indf get-cond dog-class that-acc bite-vs-act-impf-cop-pres-agr

‘When it gets a piece of bone the dog keeps on biting it.’� The situation needs to be an iterable subcomponent within

the dynamic process indicated by –u.

The aspect morpheme –Ni:

� Sahoo (2001) observes two features of –Ni:� it gives perfective reading.� it does not occur in a negative sentence.

(59) cha:tra man-e uttara lekh -il -e -Nistudent class-pl answer write-past-agr-asp‘Students have started writing the answer.’/ ‘Students have written the answer.’

(60) *cha:tra man-e uttara lekh-il-e -Ni-nã:h-istudent class-pl answer write-past-agr-asp-neg-agr

� Thus, Sahoo (op.cit.) analyses -Ni as a “telic affirmative affix”, which indicates perfectivity.

The morpheme -Ni hasa neutral viewpoint

� However, Sahoo’s claim that –Ni gives perfective reading is not true.

� The alternative English glosses given for (59) suggest that the aspectual function of -Ni is ambiguous. It gives both imperfective and perfective readings.

� However, I would propose that -Ni is basically a temporal pointer, a temporal focus marker. Unlike the imperfective -uand the perfective contexts, it does not have a fixed viewpoint; in this sense, it has a neutral viewpoint.

� The temporal focus of -Ni is in fact regulated by the situation-type aspect.

-Ni does not go with other viewpoint aspects

(61) *ra:dha: masala: ba:T -u -(a)ch -ø -i -NiRadha spices grind-impf-cop -pres-agr –tf

(62) *ra:dha: masala: ba:T -i -(a)ch -ø -i -NiRadha spices grind-vs -cop -pres-agr-tf

(63) *ra:dha: masala: ba:T -u -th -il -a: -NiRadha spices grind-impf-cop-past-agr-tf

(64) *ra:dha: masala: ba:T -i -th -il -a: -NiRadha spices grind-vs-cop-pres-agr-tf

Ambiguity of -Ni withpast and future tense markers

(65) cha:tra ma:n-e uttara lekh -il -e -Nistudent class-pl answer write-past-agr-tf‘Students have started writing the answer.’/ ‘Students have written the answer.’

(66) cha:tra ma:n-e uttara lekh -ib -e -Nistudent class-pl answer write-fut-agr-tf‘Students will have started writing the answer.’/ ‘Students will have written the answer.’

-Ni is unambiguouswith situation-types

(67) kukura-Ta: so -i -rah -il -a: -Nidog-class sleep-vs-state-past-agr-tf‘The dog has been (in the state of) sleeping.’

(68) cha:tra ma:n-e uttara lekh -i -ca:l -il -e -Nistudent class-pl answer write-vs-proc-past-agr-tf‘Students have started writing the answer.’

(69) ra:dha: masala: ba:T -i -la:g-il -a: -NiRadha spices grind-vs-act-past-agr-tf‘Radha has started the act of grinding spices.’

(70) ra:dha: masala: ba:T -i -sa:r -il -a: -NiRadha spices grind-vs-acmp-past-agr-tf‘Radha has accomplished/finished grinding spices.’

In support of the completive sa:r (finish) as a situation type

� As shown in (61)-(64), -Ni does not occur with viewpoint aspect, but it does occur with sa:r in (70), like it occurs with other situation-type aspects.

� At least from a formal perspective, it indicates that the completive sa:r (finish) does not behave like a viewpoint aspect but it behaves like a situation-type aspect.

� Thus, it supports the analysis of the completive sa:r(finish) as a situation-type aspect.

The behaviour of –Ni:A summary

� A crucial behaviour of -Ni can be observed here:� Though -Ni gives ambiguous readings in (65)-(66)

it does not do so in (67)-(70).� In (65)-(66) it occurs simply with tense features; but

in (67)-(70) it occurs with situation-type aspects.� Though the tense features allow ambiguity to -Ni,

the situation-type aspects do not.� This suggests that the underspecified situation-type

aspect features let -Ni have ambiguity.

Aspectual Morphemes: A summary

� The following table summarizes the aspectual morphemes and their related functional features:

(71)Temporal focus Viewpoint Situation typesTemprl. focus marker (-Ni) [+Dynamic] (-u) State (rah)

Process (ca:l)Activity (la:g)

Accomplishment (sa:r)

The syntactic position of -Ni

(72) T-focus-Ni Agrs

-a: Tense-il/ø/il Cop[±realis]

-ach/-th Viewpt-u Situation-type-la:g(act) VS

-i VPsubj Vba:T(grind) Obj

Types of states

� The notion of state manifests differently.� Odia morphologically distinguishes different types

of state.� Different types of state:

� Physical/Positional state� Resultant state� Characteristic state.

� Habit State� Inherent Property state

The stative rah differentiates the physical state from the resultant state

� Physical/Positional state(73) se murti-Ta: goTe masa:la dhar-i-rah-i-(a)ch-ø-i

dis statue-class one torch hold-vs-state-vs-cop-pres-agr

‘That statue is holding a torch.’

� Resultant state(74) *Ra:dha goTe na:li sa:Dhi pindh-i-rah-i-(a)ch-ø-i

Radha one red sari wear -vs-state-vs-cop -pres-agr

‘Radha is wearing a red sari.’

Characteristic states

� Characteristic states are denoted by ‘characterizing’sentences, which are understood as ‘statives’.

� two types of characterizing sentences:� ‘habitual’ (denotes a habit state: a state generalized over

episodic events or stages).� ‘lexical characterizing’ (denotes an inherent property

state of the subject, without possible reference to episodic events or its stages)

(Cf. Krifka, Pelletier et al. (1995) for the distinction).

Habit State

(75) (rabi ba:r dina) Ra:dha: ma:cha kha:-e(Sunday day) Radha fish eat-agr‘Radha eats fish (on Sunday).’

(76) ra:ma saka:L-e byasta tha:-eRama morning-in busy cop-agr‘Rama remains busy in the morning.’/‘Rama keeps busy in the morning.’

Habit states have episodic counterparts

(77) (rabi ba:r dina) Ra:dha: ma:cha kha:-il-a:(Sunday day) Radha fish eat-past-agr‘Radha ate fish (on Sunday).’

(78) ra:ma saka:L-e byasta th-il-a :Rama morning-in busy cop-past-agr‘Rama was busy in the morning.’

Inherent property state� Unlike the habitual generic sentences, the lexical

characterizing sentences indicate an inherent property state.

� Such states are typically denoted by nominal or adjectival predicates whose temporal reference is marked on a copular verb; e.g.:

(79) ra:ma mo:-ra bha:i *tha:-e/aT-eRa:ma my-of brother cop-agr‘Rama is my brother.’

Inherent property states have no episodic counterparts

(80) (*khara: din-e) ra:ma mo-ra bha:i aT-esummer day-loc Rama my brother cop-agr*‘Rama remains my brother in summer.’

(81) * khara: din-e ra:ma mo:-ra bha:i th-il-a:/aT-il-a:summer day-loc Ra:ma my-of brother cop-agr/cop-past-agr

*‘In the summer, Rama was my brother.’

Lexical stative copula in Odia lacks episodic morphology

� In fact the habitual generic copula th(a:) forms a paradigm with tense features; but, the lexical stativecopula aT cannot take any tense feature:

(82) th-il-a: *aT-il-a:cop-past-agr cop-past-agrth-ib-a *aT-ib-acop-fut-agr cop-fut-agrth(a:)-e aT-ecop-agr cop-agr

Conceptual hierarchy of aspect features in Odia

*�+����������

,-.������/ ,(.������/

,-����/ ,(����/ ����

-�0��

(�0��

�������������

����'���

������

��������"����������

1� �����

2����

3�����(�������

Imperfective as [-Telic]: The English Case

(84) Mary is eating an apple. (Accomplishment)(85) The Earth is revolving on its axis. (Process)

(taken from Smith (1997: 173))(86) The dog is biting a bone. (Activity)(87) a. The statue was sitting on the corner. (Physical

State) (taken from Smith (1997: 173))b. The statue is sitting on the corner.c. The statue of liberty is holding a torch.

Conceptual hierarchy ofaspect features in English

(88) Viewpoint Poles[+Telic] (perfective) [-Telic] (imperfective)

[+Dynamic] [-Dynamic]State

± Agent -Agent +Agent

Accomplishment Process Activity Resultant Physical

Smith’s (1997) parameter of aspect

� Theoretically, the situation types are universal in the sense that their semantic values do not change from language to language.

� However, Smith (op. cit.: 2) assumes that viewpoint categories have a parameterized structure in the sense that a language may deviate form their universal content.

� Thus, parametric differences between languages are tuned to viewpoint aspects. As per Smith (op. cit.), the universal contents of the viewpoint aspects are as follows:

Smith’s (1997) notion of the universal functions of viewpoints

� Perfective: “focuses on the situation as a whole”� Imperfective “focuses on part of a situation”� Neutral: “provides a flexible point of view”

Root Aspectual Distinction and the parameter for Odia

� Though it is less common for languages to show situation type aspects, by and large, they show the [±Dynamic] or [±Telic] features grammatically. This indicates the primacy of such aspects features over the situation types (aktionsarts) in grammar. Therefore, I will call the aspect features, namely [±Dynamic] or [±Telic] the primary/root aspects and the morphemes holding such features the primary/root aspect morphemes, but not “viewpoints”. By and large, languages show that the number of such morphemes is much fewer than the number of situation types assumed. Apparently, the UG essentially needs such binary values marked grammatically to set the aspectual parameter.

� Taking [±Dynamic] or [±Telic] as the primary/root aspects, English uses [±Telic] as the primary aspectual distinction. However, Odiadiffers from English by choosing [±Dynamic] as the primary/root aspectual distinction, which is built into the language by grammatical morphology.