atelic) distinction (original) (raw)

This paper deals with the bounded/unbounded (telic [atelic/distinction which is relevant to the study of aspect (more specifically, 'Aktionsart') but which has been defined in different ways and has been applied to different objects in the linguistic literature. In thispaper the author aims (1) to clear up some of the confusion by formulating an accurate definition; (2) to show that the distinction has been wrongly defined in terms of two values (' + bounded' and '-bounded'), as some sentences clearly require a neutral value ('0-bounded'); (3) to make clear that this triple distinction also provides a basis for distinguishing between relevant classes of durational adverbiais; and (4) to throw some light on thefactors that determine the +bounded,-bounded, or 0-bounded character of linguistic objects. In most recent articles on aspect and related semantic problems a distinction is made between verb phrases like 'drink beer' and 'drink three glasses of beer'. The former are said to be 'unbounded' (atelic, durative, imperfective, nonconclusive, activities), the latter have been referred to as 'bounded' (telic,, nondurative, perfective, conclusive, terminative, resultative, performances, accomplishments). The distinction (which appears to go back to Aristotle) has proved very useful for explaining the meaning and use of particular verb forms in many languages. Thus, Garey (1957) relies on it to explain the difference between the French 'imparfait' and the 'passé composé'; Bauer (1970) and Zydatiss (1976) use the distinction to account for the different meanings and uses of the English perfect; and many linguists have applied it in making c1ear the different uses and implications of simple and progressive tense forms in English. In spite of the fact that it has been widely made use of, the distinction has not been applied in a uniform way. In the linguistic literature we find it applied to various objects, such as verbs (e.