语言类型学 Typology

Ⅱ. Empirical Dimensions of Linguistic
2.2 Tense Typology 2.2.1 Absolute Tense If a language combines all three tenses, then we essentially have a tenseless language. e.g. In Chinese, 我去学校了。 Past
形态 词序 格标 音位 人标 时态体 词性
及物性 类型学 句法
语态
语义
语法
Ⅱ. Empirical Dimensions of Linguistic
Typology
Typology of Tense, Aspect, and Modality Systems
Ferdinand de Haan
This article is concerned with the notions of tense, aspect, and modality from a typological point of view. It provides an overview of the major areas of ongoing research and also a description of where the three areas overlap or not.
Traditionally, the semantic category of tense is usually defined as the linguistic representation of time. That is, tense tells us where the action or event reported on in the utterance is located in time (past, present, or future).
Reichenbach (1947) (also see Comrie 1985a)
Ⅱ. Empirical Dimensions of Linguistic
2.2 Tense
Typology
Tense
Absolute Tense Relative Tense
When S = R*, we are speaking of absolute tense.
Ⅱ. Empirical Dimensions of Linguistic
2.2 Tense Typology 2.2.1 Absolute Tense In Yagua, there are five distinctions: two proximate tenses and three past tenses. They are exemplified below:
*Introduction to The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology
Agenda
Ⅰ. General Introduction
Ⅱ. Empirical Dimensions of Linguistic Typology Ⅲ. Conclusion
Ⅰ. General Introduction
Ⅱ. Empirical Dimensions of Linguistic
2.2 Tense
Typology
Tense
Absolute Tense Relative Tense
When R ≠ S, we speak of relative tense. In the sentence John had left by 5:00 yesterday, E takes place before R (5:00 yesterday), which in turn takes place before S (now). E is measured against R and, secondarily, against S.
Ⅱ. Empirical Dimensions of Linguistic
2.2 Tense Typology 2.2.1 Absolute Tense In Yagua, there are five distinctions: two proximate tenses and three past tenses. They are exemplified below:
And the 30 papers can be divided into 4 large thematic parts: Part Ⅰ Foundations History, Theory, and Method (6 Papers) Part Ⅱ Theoretical Dimensions of Linguistic Typology (6 Papers) Part Ⅲ Empirical Dimensions of Linguistic Typology (12 Papers) Part Ⅳ Linguistic Typology in a Wider Context (6 Papers)
Ⅱ. Empirical Dimensions of Linguistic
2.2 Tense Typology But in the typological framework, the basic idea is to describe tenses with three parameters:
do did will do present past future
Ⅱ. Empirical Dimensions of Linguistic
2.2 Tense Typology 2.2.1 Absolute Tense It can also occur that a language uses the same form for two or more tenses. If a language combines past and present tense, we have a future/nonfuture opposition.
我去学校了。 Present
我去学校了。 Future
Ⅱ. Empirical Dimensions of Linguistic
2.2 Tense Typology 2.2.1 Absolute Tense In many languages, even finer distinctions can be made in the tense system by adding degrees of remoteness. It will usually do so in the past rather than in the future (there are no remoteness distinctions in the present) .
Ⅱ. Empirical Dimensions of Linguistic
2.2 Tense Typology 2.2.1 Absolute Tense As mentioned above, there are three absolute tenses: present, past, and future. It can be that a language formally distinguishes between all three in having separate transcription for each tense. e.g. In English,
Ⅱ. Empirical Dimensions of Linguistic
Typology of Tense, Aspect, and Modality Systems Typology
Ferdinand de Haan
2.1 Introduction
TAM should be viewed not top-down but bottom-up. (Joan Bybee, 1985)
Tense, aspect, modality in English, Russian, Chinese,… English Progressive, Russian Perfect, Chinese Present,…
Ⅱ. Empirical Dimensions of Linguistic
2.2 Tense Typology
Situation time (S), the time at which the statement was uttered; Event time (E), the time at which the event described in the utterance takes place; Reference time (R), the time against which E is measured.
Georg von der Gablentz was the founder of modern linguistic typology. Gabelentz taught himself Dutch, Italian and Chinese during his gymnasium （大学预科） years. and he earned his doctoral from Dresden in 1876 with a translation of Zhou Dunyi’s Taiji Tushuo (太极图说 "Explaining Taiji”).
When E comes before S(R), we are dealing with past tense; when E and S(R) are identical (or at least overlap), the present tense must be usS(R), we have an instance of future tense.