ABSTRACT
A distinction is traditionally made between lexical and grammatical aspect. In broad terms, lexical aspect is involved when the aspectual force of the construction (such as the value of perfectivity or imperfectivity) is conveyed by a lexical item (for example, the sense of the verb in question). Thus in a construction such as:
(1) A trois heures il a fini son repas
notwithstanding any aspectual force contained in the tense used, the semantic content of the verb finir contains within it notions of perfectivity and completion. In the same way, in a construction such as:
(2) A trois heures il a commence son rep as
the semantic force of the verb commencer has certain implications as regards aspect, in that it marks the beginning of an action which is not viewed in relation to an end point. Grammatical aspect, on the other hand, concerns the marking of aspectual nuances by morphological means, that is, normally the use of certain verb forms. Thus, as in the example cited above by Comrie, the distinction between iliisait and iilut can be said to be aspectual, in that imperfectivity and perfectivity are opposed within absolute past time, and the opposition is marked by different morphological endings. Alternatively, the aspectual contrast between simple and compound forms would be considered a case of grammatical aspect. In practice, however, a number of problems arise. It is, for example, difficult in many cases to say with certainty to what extent the aspectual force of a given construction comes from grammatical elements, and to what extent it depends on lexical items (the verb itself or adverbials in the environment), or on the combination of the two. Moreover there is considerable debate as to whether certain aspectual markers are grammatical or lexical by nature. While oppositions such as fitlfaisait or faitla fait are clearly grammatical by nature, and oppositions such as chercherl trouver clearly lexical, there are many cases which do not fall neatly into one
of these two large categories, notably verbal periphrases such as et1'e en train de, 'alter + present participle' etc, as well as certain affixes and infixes.2 As we shall see in some of the models examined in 5.4 below, the inclusion of both lexical and grammatical markers in a theoretical model can pose a number of problems (see for example Brunot (5.4.2), Reid (5.4.5), Martin (5.4.6), Wilmet (5.4.7». Note that we shall make use of a concept akin to lexical aspect in our discussion of the passive in 8.4.2.4,
Some scholars classify lexical markers of aspect under the category mode d'action or Aktionsart, or, perhaps more usefully, under Vendler's label 'situation type'.) Vendler (1967:97-121) divides verb phrases into four different situation types, defined according to semantic and syntactic criteria: activities (e.g. running, pushing a cart), accomplishments (e.g. running a mile, drawing a circle), achievements (e.g. reaching the top) and states (e.g. loving). Accomplishments and achievements are 'telic', in that they have an end point, a goal; states and activities on the other hand are 'atelic' (they do not necessarily have an end point or goal). For example, Vendler classifies running and 1"llnning a mile as an activity and an accomplishment respectively, the difference between them being that running a mile has an end point (the point where a mile has been run) whereas running can go on indefinitely. Similarly, one fundamental difference between accomplishments and achievements is that achievements occur at a single moment, whereas accomplishments can take place over a period of time. Although situation type and aspect are two different concepts, there are nonetheless compatibilities and incompatibilities between certain situation types and certain morphological markers of aspect. For example, in French, there is a high degree of compatibility between states (3) and activities (4) on the one hand, and morphological markers of imperfectivity such as the imperfect tense on the other:
(3) II etait intelligent
(4) Je fumais hier soir.
