The debate on the question of “tense” and “aspect” in the Stoics’ linguistic theory (original) (raw)

Abstract

The debateo nt he question of "tense" and "aspect" in the Stoics' linguistic theory Abstract: This essayoffers an in-depth discussion of the widelydebated question as to whether the Stoics arranged their system of tenses on an aspectual basis, as originallysuggested by Pohlenz (1939). Manysubsequent authorsembraced this hypothesis, while others rejected it.T he first part of the chapter discusses the Stoic theory of time from ageometrical-physical perspective,inorder to evaluate its compatibility with the theory transmitted by grammarians, and particularly by ascholium to Dionysius Thrax by the 7th-century Byzantine commentator Stephanus. The essayt hen analyses the various forms of diairesis proposed for Greek tenses by modern authors who have investigated this topic (Pohlenz, Barwick, Versteegh, Berrettoni, Mársico). Finally, it adduces the main reasons in support of the hypothesis that the Stoics adopted the category of aspect, which was alreadyt ob ef ound in their metaphysical reflection on space, time, and movement,prior to its application to the field of tenses,asreportedbygrammarians. 1P remise It is well-known that the linguistic categories identified by the Stoics lie, through the mediation of Alexandrian and Roman grammarians, at the basis of the grammatical tradition extendingd own to the present day. In addition to the classification of the so-called parts of speech (μέρη τοῦ λόγου), which werei ncreased from Aristotle'sthree¹ to six,² the Stoics' work is important for its systematisation of Greek verbal tenses.³  Or four,dependingonw hether,i na ddition to the ὄνομα, ῥῆμα,a nd σύνδεσμος,wec onsider the ἄρθρον ap art of speech: see Pinborg1 975, 72-75.  It seems as though Zeno and Cleanthes initiallya cknowledgedf ivep arts of speech: proper name (ὄνομα), common noun (προσηγορία), verb (ῥῆμα), article/pronoun (ἄρθρον), and conjunction (σύνδεσμος). LaterA ntipater added as ixth: adverb (μεσότης). See Pinborg1 975, 99.  See Frede1987, 305 and ff.; Ildefonse 2000,301: "La scholie de Stephanos atteste que la théorie des tempse st […]c onstituée dans le stoïcisme." Giovanni Manetti,U niversityo fS iena OpenAccess.

Figures (8)

Table 1: Tense and aspects in Stephanus’ scholium

Table 1: Tense and aspects in Stephanus’ scholium

Table 2: Tense and aspects in Stephanus’ scholium and Dionyius Thrax gard to the Stoic theory of time, a close interrelation of the category of time and that of aspect: “Les grammairiens héritaient ici d’une tradition prégrammaticale (ou protogrammaticale?), notamment stoicienne, qui avait mis en évidence, dans le signifié des différents ‘temps’ du verbe, une étroite imbrication du temporel (avant vs aprés, proche vs lointain) et de l’aspec- tuel (accompli vs inaccompli, extensif vs perfectif).”

Table 2: Tense and aspects in Stephanus’ scholium and Dionyius Thrax gard to the Stoic theory of time, a close interrelation of the category of time and that of aspect: “Les grammairiens héritaient ici d’une tradition prégrammaticale (ou protogrammaticale?), notamment stoicienne, qui avait mis en évidence, dans le signifié des différents ‘temps’ du verbe, une étroite imbrication du temporel (avant vs aprés, proche vs lointain) et de l’aspec- tuel (accompli vs inaccompli, extensif vs perfectif).”

The present and the imperfect are akin on account of the fact that they are both imperfective (non-completed or extensive, mapatatiKoi); the di tween the two is that the present extends towards the future, whereas the imper- fect extends towards t ne presen (250.29 -31) — also towards the just towards the present but also as paradoxical (Caujol e-Zaslaws “paradoxical” phenomenon, La 59-60), provides a sc WEVOS TapataTtKds), which Lal which begins in the past and extends beyond the moment ty of the utterance: (G.G. 1.3.250.5-14) and — as is no ky 1985, 21; Marsico 2003, 66). To il lot (1985, 72), followed by Berret fference be- ed later on future. This claim, namely that it extends not “towards the future,” has struck many scholars ustrate this oni (1989a, hematic representation in which the imperfect (napwxn- ot calls “extensive,” is described as a line present verb form by saying ‘I write a verse’, but this tense is incomplete, since the part that must be written is still missing in the verse.”

The present and the imperfect are akin on account of the fact that they are both imperfective (non-completed or extensive, mapatatiKoi); the di tween the two is that the present extends towards the future, whereas the imper- fect extends towards t ne presen (250.29 -31) — also towards the just towards the present but also as paradoxical (Caujol e-Zaslaws “paradoxical” phenomenon, La 59-60), provides a sc WEVOS TapataTtKds), which Lal which begins in the past and extends beyond the moment ty of the utterance: (G.G. 1.3.250.5-14) and — as is no ky 1985, 21; Marsico 2003, 66). To il lot (1985, 72), followed by Berret fference be- ed later on future. This claim, namely that it extends not “towards the future,” has struck many scholars ustrate this oni (1989a, hematic representation in which the imperfect (napwxn- ot calls “extensive,” is described as a line present verb form by saying ‘I write a verse’, but this tense is incomplete, since the part that must be written is still missing in the verse.”

The first schematic representation in chronological terms was proposed by Poh- lenz (1939, 177) and is — in the author’s intention — entirely aspectual. Pohlenz argued that, in classifying tenses, the Stoics set out from aspectual distinctions and only subsequently sought to identify what time each verbal process was as- sociated with. By including determinacy and indeterminacy among aspectual forms, Pohlenz has the division start with the distinction between determinate (wptopévot) and indeterminate tenses (ddptoto1). The former are further subdi- vided into imperfective (napatattkoi) and perfective tenses (ovvteAtkoi), each of which has a present (éveotwe) and a past (mapwynuevosc), while the latter are subdivided into past (tapwynpévos) and future (uéAAwv). Here is the sche- matic representation proposed by Pohlenz: Pohlenz’s schematic representation has been criticised from various angles. First of all, Marsico (2003, 49) has objected that the opposition between wptopé- voc and ddptotos is not aspectual (as Pohlenz would have it), but temporal, given that what it is designed to emphasise is the determinacy or indeterminacy of the quantity of time in relation to the moment of enunciation. In this respect, the idea that the primary division lies in this opposition goes against Pohlenz’s

The first schematic representation in chronological terms was proposed by Poh- lenz (1939, 177) and is — in the author’s intention — entirely aspectual. Pohlenz argued that, in classifying tenses, the Stoics set out from aspectual distinctions and only subsequently sought to identify what time each verbal process was as- sociated with. By including determinacy and indeterminacy among aspectual forms, Pohlenz has the division start with the distinction between determinate (wptopévot) and indeterminate tenses (ddptoto1). The former are further subdi- vided into imperfective (napatattkoi) and perfective tenses (ovvteAtkoi), each of which has a present (éveotwe) and a past (mapwynuevosc), while the latter are subdivided into past (tapwynpévos) and future (uéAAwv). Here is the sche- matic representation proposed by Pohlenz: Pohlenz’s schematic representation has been criticised from various angles. First of all, Marsico (2003, 49) has objected that the opposition between wptopé- voc and ddptotos is not aspectual (as Pohlenz would have it), but temporal, given that what it is designed to emphasise is the determinacy or indeterminacy of the quantity of time in relation to the moment of enunciation. In this respect, the idea that the primary division lies in this opposition goes against Pohlenz’s

Figure 4: Versteegh’s reconstruction of Stoic diairesis

Figure 4: Versteegh’s reconstruction of Stoic diairesis

Figure 6: Marsico’s reconstruction of Stoic diairesis between tenses. More specifically, the Sextus Empiricus passage (Math. 10.91) presents within a philosophical framework the aspectual opposition we have found in the grammatical sphere. This passage occurs in the context of a debate between Diodorus Chronus and an unspecified group of “dogmatic” opponents — which Crivelli (1994, 490 — 491) identifies as Stoics. The debate concerns, first of all, the question of physical time and movement and, secondly, that of the value and truth of utterances. In this passage, the author draws a distinction between “perfective” (ovvteAcotikoi) and “imperfective” (mapatatikoi) utterances, ad- ducing examples that are formulated, respectively, in the present for the latter type and in the perfect for the former. The importance of this passage lies in its emphasis on the fact that the aspectual opposition between “imperfective” and “perfective” was part of the general philosophical system before it was en- visaged as a grammatical distinction.“

Figure 6: Marsico’s reconstruction of Stoic diairesis between tenses. More specifically, the Sextus Empiricus passage (Math. 10.91) presents within a philosophical framework the aspectual opposition we have found in the grammatical sphere. This passage occurs in the context of a debate between Diodorus Chronus and an unspecified group of “dogmatic” opponents — which Crivelli (1994, 490 — 491) identifies as Stoics. The debate concerns, first of all, the question of physical time and movement and, secondly, that of the value and truth of utterances. In this passage, the author draws a distinction between “perfective” (ovvteAcotikoi) and “imperfective” (mapatatikoi) utterances, ad- ducing examples that are formulated, respectively, in the present for the latter type and in the perfect for the former. The importance of this passage lies in its emphasis on the fact that the aspectual opposition between “imperfective” and “perfective” was part of the general philosophical system before it was en- visaged as a grammatical distinction.“

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (43)

  1. Barwick, K. (1957), "Probleme der stoischen Sprachlere undR hetorik," in: Abhandlungen der sächsischen Akademie der Wissenshaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historische Klasse, 49:3.
  2. Benveniste, E. (1959) "Les relations de tempsd ans le verbe français," in: Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique,5 4.1, 69 -82 (now in: Benveniste, E. (1966), Problèmes de linguistique générale I, Paris,2 37 -250).
  3. Benveniste, E. (1965), "Le langagee tl ' expérienceh umaine, " in: Diogène,5 1, 3 -13 (now in: Benveniste, E. (1974), Problèmes de linguistique générale II, Paris, 67 -78).
  4. Berrettoni, P. (1988), "La definizione stoicad ell'aoristo," in: Studi es aggi linguistici,2 8, 57 -79 (now in: Berrettoni, 1997,8 3-96).
  5. Berrettoni, P. (1989a), "An idol of the school: the aspectual theoryo ft he Stoics," in: Rivista di linguistica,1 .1, 33 -68.
  6. Berrettoni, P. (1989b), "Further remarkso nt he Stoic theoryo ft enses," in: Rivista di linguistica,1 .2, 251 -275.
  7. Berrettoni, P. (1989c), "Il perfetto come segno: unac onsiderazione meta-stoica," in: Annali del Dipartimento di Studi del mondo classicoedel mediterraneo antico. Sezione linguistica,1 1, 161 -196 (now in: Berrettoni, 1997,5 5-82).
  8. Berrettoni, P. (1990), "Alcuni presupposti epistemologicid ella scoperta dell'aspettov erbale," in: Quaderni dell'Istituto di Glottologia dell'Università 'G. D'Annunzio' di Chieti,2 .1990, 5 -34 (now in: Berrettoni, 1997,2 05 -232).
  9. Berrettoni, P. (1997), Atene eL ipsia. Saggi di storiografia del pensierog rammaticale, Alessandria.
  10. Caujolle-Zaslawsky, F. (1985), "La scholie de Stéphanos. Quelques remarques surl at héorie des tempsd uv erbe attribuée aux Stoïciens," in: Histoire, Épistémologie, Langage,7 .1, 19 -46.
  11. Colaclides, J. P. (1966), "On the Stoic theoryo ft enses," in: Quarterly Progress Report of the MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics,8 0, 214 -216.
  12. Comrie, B. (1976), Aspect,C ambridge.
  13. Crivelli, P. (1994), "The Stoic Analysis of Tense and of Plural Propositions in Sextus Empiricus, AdversusM athematicos X9 9," in: The Classical Quarterly,4 4.2, 490 -499.
  14. Darbo-Peschansky, C. (ed.) (2000), Constructions du temps dans le monde greca ncient, Paris.
  15. Frede, M. (1987), "Principles of Stoic Grammar," in: id., Essays in AncientP hilosophy,O xford, 301 -337.
  16. Goldschmidt, V. (1972), "ΥΠΑΡΧΕΙΝ et ΥΦΙΣΤΑΝΑΙ dans la philosophie stoïcienne," in: Revue des études Grecques,8 5.406/408, 331 -344.
  17. Gonda, J. (1962), The Aspectual Function of the Rgvedic Presenta nd Aorist,T he Hague.
  18. Hadot, P. (1969), "ZurV orgeschichted es Begriffs 'Existenz', ὑπάρχειν,b ei den Stoikern," in: Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte,1 3.2, 115 -127.
  19. Hiersche, R. (1977), "'Aspekt' in der stoischen Tempuslehre?," in: Zeitscrift für vergleischende Sprachforschung,9 1, 275 -287.
  20. Hoffmann, Ph. (1983), "Παράτασις.D el ad escription aspectuelle des verbes grecs àu ne définition du tempsd ans le néoplatonisme tardif," in: Revue des Études grecques, 96.455/459,1-26.
  21. Hülser,K .( 1987 -1988), Fragmente zur Dialektik der Stoiker: Neue Sammelung der Texte mit deutscher Übersetzung und Kommentaren,S tuttgart.
  22. Ildefonse, F. (1997), La naissanced el ag rammaired ans l'Antiquité grecque,P aris.
  23. Ildefonse, F. (2000a), "La théorie stoïcienne des tempsg rammaticaux," in: C. Darbo-Peschansky( ed.), Constructions du temps dans le monde greca ncient,P aris, 299 -324.
  24. Ildefonse, F. (2000b), LesS toïciens, I, Zénon Cléanthe, Chrisippe,P aris.
  25. Kemp, A. (1986), "The Tekhne Grammatike of Dionysius Thrax, Translated into English," in: Historiographia Linguistica 13.2/3, 343 -363.
  26. Kuhn, Th. S. (1970), The Structureo fS cientific Revolutions,C hicago.
  27. Lallot, J. (1985a), "La description des temps du verbe chez trois grammairiens grecs (Apollonius, Stéphanos, Planude)," in: Histoire, Epistémologie, Langage,7 ,1 ,4 7-81 (now in: Lallot, 2012, 87 -114).
  28. Lallot, J. (1985b), La Tekhne grammatike de Denys le Thrace,P aris.
  29. Lallot, J. (2000), "Chronos chez les grammairiens," in: C. Darbo-Peschansky( ed.), Constructions du temps dans le monde greca ncient,P aris, 287 -298. The debate on the question of "tense" and "aspect"
  30. Lallot, J. (2012), Études sur la grammairea lexandrine, Paris.
  31. Lohman, J. (1953), "Gemeinitalisch undU ritalisch. (Ein Beitrag zurs prachwissenshaftlischen Methodenlehre)," in: Lexis,1 ,1 69 -217.
  32. Long, A. A. /S edley,D .( 1987 -1989), The hellenistic philosophers,2v ols., Cambridge/New York.
  33. Manetti, G. (2017), "L'aspettualità nella lingua. Marcature morfologichee de ffetti di soggettività," in: Lexia. Rivista di semiotica, 27/28, 65 -86.
  34. Manetti, G. (2018), "Benveniste and the issue of linguistic temporality.T ime of enunciation and its relationship to Bergson and Husserl'si deaso ft ime," in: Blityri. Studi di storia delle idee suis egni el el ingue,7 .2, 79 -106.
  35. Mársico, C. T. (2003), "Los tiempos del verbo en la 'gramática' estoica," in: Quadernos de Filología Clásica: Estudios griegos ei ndoeuropeos,4 1.13, 41 -68.
  36. Müller,H .E .( 1943), Prinzipiend er stoischen Grammatik,U npublished dissertation, Rostock.
  37. Petrilli, R. (1997), Temps et détermination dans la grammairee tl ap hilosophie anciennes, Münster.
  38. Pinborg, J. (1975), "Classical antiquity: Greece," in Th. A. Sebeok (ed.), CurrentT rends in Linguistics,T he Hague /P aris, 13, 69 -125.
  39. Pohlenz,M .( 1939), "Die Begründung der abendländischen Sprachlehred urch die Stoa," in: Nachrichten von der Gesellshaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse. Fachgruppe I, NF,B and 3:6.
  40. Pohlenz,M .( 1948), Die Stoa. Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung,G öttingen (It. tr. La Stoa. Storia di un movimento spirituale,F irenze).
  41. Robins, R. H. (1951), Ancienta nd Medieval Grammatical Theory in Europe with Particular Reference to Modern Linguistic Doctrine,L ondon.
  42. Versteegh, C. H. M. (1980), "The Stoic Verbal System," in: Hermes,1 08, 338 -357.
  43. Versteegh, C. H. M. (2013), "Ap erfect mess: The distinction of tense and aspect in grammaticalt raditions," in: S. EcoC onti /M .F arina (eds.), Comparing ancient grammars: The Greek, Syriac and Arabic traditions,P isa, 27 -64.