fAAktion

Ö Please fill in your text in the yellow colored table element Õ

Lemma aspect

Definiens Grammatical domain encoding the temporal constituency of the

position (English) situation and its distribution in time.

German Aspekt
equivalent

Definiens
position
(German)

Further Aspect is the traditional term for a vast and rather heterogeneous
explanation functional domain serving for the linguistic encoding of the
internal temporal structure of situations expressed by predicates
EA not more than
4000 characters, and of the speaker’s assessment of this temporal structure and
SA not more its relation to the reference time established in discourse (as
20000 characters!
distinct from tense, which, according to current neo-
Reichenbachian approaches, establishes the relation between
reference time and speech time, see KLEIN 1994). The broadest
conception of aspect includes semantic distinctions ranging from
lexically encoded situation types (such as states, activities,
accomplishments and achievements of VENDLER 1967) to
inflectional oppositions such as French Passé Composé vs.
Imparfait or English Simple vs. Progressive tenses. Current
typologically and theoretically oriented practice, starting from
COMRIE 1976, MASLOV 1978 and DAHL 1985 and developed in
such work as SMITH 1991[1997], BREU 1994, KLEIN 1994,
BERTINETTO/DELFITTO 2000, assumes a principled distinction
between situation types (actionality or Aktionsart, see TATEVOSOV
2002; the term “Aktionsart” is somewhat less preferable, since it
is also applied to actional modifiers discussed below), involving
such lexical/ontological distinctions as static vs. dynamic,
durative vs. punctual and telic vs. atelic, on the one hand, and,
on the other hand, grammatically encoded viewpoint aspect
(such as perfective and imperfective), whose function is
ultimately to embed situations in discourse by relating them to
reference/topic time (KLEIN 1994) and “zooming in” at their
different phases (see DICKEY 2016 for a general survey). In
between actionality proper and viewpoint operators it is
necessary to distinguish a broad and heterogeneous domain of
actional modifiers, i.e. operators shifting predicates from one
situation type to another, e.g. stativizers, iteratives, telicizers etc.
Aspect shows great and not yet fully explored cross-linguistic
variation. Languages differ widely as to the array of available
situation types (the fact not yet recognized by all specialists, but
see TATEVOSOV 2002 for empirical arguments) and as to which
aspectual functions they grammaticalize, how different functions
are distributed over grammatical markers, and how they interact
with situation types, with each other and with other grammatical
domains, such as tense, mood or voice. As a result of still
ongoing typological work started by DAHL 1985 and continued by
BYBEE/DAHL 1989 and BYBEE/PERKINS/PAGLIUCA 1994, a number
of cross-linguistic aspectual gram types (i.e. clusters of grams of
different individual languages showing significant similarities in
meanings and use) have been identified, but their inventory is
yet far from being exhausted.
Formal means of expressing aspectual meanings differ widely.
Besides the most common affixal morphology, languages employ
non-concatenative morphological processes such as
reduplication, segmental and prosodic alternations and
combinations thereof, as well as periphrastic expressions such
as auxiliary verb constructions or invariable particles. Since all
aspectual meanings are high on BYBEE’s (1985) relevance scale,
it is no surprise that aspect is normally expressed closer to the
verbal stem than tense and mood and that its expression is often
not fully regular. Finally, aspectual distinctions can be manifested
outside of the verbal domain sensu stricto, as e.g. in the Finnic
languages, where with accomplishment transitive verbs the
partitive case marking of the direct object induces imperfective
viewpoint, while the genitive/nominative case marking signals
perfectivity, with the verb itself not marking aspect, cf. example
(1).
(1) Finnish (Finno-Ugric < Uralic; HUUMO 2010: 91)
a. Sö-i-n puuro-a.
eat-PST-1SG porridge-PTV.SG
‘I was eating (the) porridge.’
b. Sö-i-n puuro-n.
eat-PST-1SG porridge-GEN.SG
‘I ate up the porridge.’
The best known and admittedly the most typologically common
(cf. DAHL/VELUPILLAI 2013) aspectual opposition is that between
the perfective and the imperfective viewpoints, roughly
corresponding to the distinction between situations viewed “from
outside” in their totality vs. viewed “from inside”. This well-known
definition by COMRIE (1976: 16) has been formalized by Smith
(1991[1997]: Ch. 4) and KLEIN (1994: 118) by recourse to the
notion of reference time or topic time, which is included into the
situation time with imperfective aspect and, by contrast, includes
the situation time with perfective aspect. Despite these rather
straightforward definitions, languages differ widely in the actual
uses of perfective and imperfective grams, with differences partly
due to their interaction with different situation types, and of
course, there are languages without any systematic formal
manifestation of viewpoints, e.g. German and Paraguayan
Guaraní. Thus, the distribution of the English Simple (perfective)
vs. Progressive (imperfective) tenses significantly overlaps with,
but is not identical to, the distribution of the Russian Perfective
resp. Imperfective verbs. With reference to completed resp.
ongoing telic situations perfective resp. imperfective are used in
both languages, cf. (2a,b) and (3a,b), while temporally bounded
atelic situations are expressed by the perfective in English (2c)
and by the imperfective in Russian (3c). This indicates that the
aspectual systems can be differentially sensitive to the notions of
completion (ultimately linked to actionality) vs. temporal
boundedness.
(2) English (Germanic < Indo-European; own knowledge)
a. John wrote the letter. (telic, completed - perfective)
b. John was writing the letter. (telic, ongoing - imperfective)
c. Yesterday John wrote letters. (atelic, bounded - perfective)
(3) Russian (Slavic < Indo-European, own knowledge,
translations as in (2))
a. Ivan napisal pis’mo. (telic, completed - perfective)
b. Ivan pisal pis’mo. (telic, ongoing - imperfective)
c. Včera Ivan pisal pis’ma. (atelic, bounded - imperfective)
In a mirror-image way, the English imperfective Progressive is
famously incompatible with stative verbs (*I am knowing John),
while the Russian Imperfective freely combines with them, which
reflects the distinction between the cross-linguistic gram types
progressive (requires dynamic predicates) and “broad”
imperfective (combines with all situation types).
Both English and Russian show viewpoint distinctions in principle
independent of other verbal categories such as tense. In many
languages aspectual viewpoints are encoded as part of the tense
system, the most common distinction being that between the
perfective and the imperfective past tenses with no aspectual
opposition elsewhere, as e.g. in French or Kabardian, cf. (4).
(4) Kabardian, Besleney dialect (= East Circassian, Northwest
Caucasian, Russia; examples from own fieldwork texts)
a. šxe žʼ-jə-ʔ-wəre pječʼjen'je-xe-r jewe jə-šx-t.
eat(IMP) say-3SG.A-say-CVB cookie-PL-ABS PTCL 3SG.A-eat-
PST.IPF

‘When she told him “Eat!”, he was (already) eating cookies.’

b. jəṭane jewe kaše jə-šx-a.
then PTCL porridge 3SG.A-eat-PST.PFV
‘Then he ate the porridge.’
c. kaše s-xʷe-p-ṣ̂ə-ne.
porridge 1SG.IO-BEN-2SG.A-do-FUT
‘You will cook / will be cooking porridge for me.’
Besides the perfective and the imperfective and their variants
such as completive or progressive (see respective chapters for
more details), there are at least two further cross-linguistic gram
types related to viewpoint aspect and explicitly identified as such
by KLEIN (1994: Ch. 4), i.e. the resultative and the prospective.
Resultative is a well-established cross-linguistic gram type (see
NEDJALKOV ed. 1988) focusing on the resultant state of a telic
situation (as in The window is closed) and is restricted in its
combination with situation types. Resultative is related to the
broader domain of the perfect grams; the latter, according to
KLEIN 1994 and NISHIYAMA/KOENIG 2010, focuses on the rather
vaguely defined “post-state” pragmatically related to a situation
(cf. the commonly invoked notion of “current relevance”) and thus
combines with any situation type, including statives (as in I have
been to London). Resultatives frequently evolve into perfects and
then into perfective past tenses (BYBEE/PERKINS/PAGLIUCA 1994:
Ch. 3). By contrast, the prospective focuses on the preparatory
stage (pre-time) of the situation thus giving rise to future tenses
(KLEIN 1994: 116-117), though by itself it is compatible with any
time reference, as in Neo-Aramaic in (5) and the English
translations.
(5) Neo-Aramaic (COGHILL 2010: 369)
a. zi-lə ’āθə məṭrɒ.
PRSP-3SG.M come.3SG.M rain
‘It is going to rain.’
b. zi-lə ’āθe-wɒ lá-wəllebə.
PRSP-3SG.M come.3SG.M-PST NEG-he.was.able
‘He was going to come but he was not able to.’
There are two further more “exotic” cross-linguistic gram types of
viewpoint aspect which show particularly strong interaction with
situation types. One of them, especially well represented in
South and East Asia and without a commonly accepted name,
somewhat paradoxically combines the resultative and the
progressive functions distributed according to situation type, see
EBERT (1995). Thus, in Japanese the periphrastic construction in
-te/-de iru has resultative interpretation with punctual verbs (6a),
progressive interpretation with atelic verbs (6b), and is
ambiguous between both readings with telic accomplishment
verbs (6c) (cf. OGIHARA 1998).
(6) Japanese (EBERT 1995: 192)
a. Kare wa sin-de i-ru.
 he TOP die-CVB AUX-PRS
‘He has died/is dead.’
b. Kare wa ason-de i-ru.
he TOP play-CVB AUX-PRS
‘He is playing.’
c. Kare wa hon o yon-de i-ru.
he TOP book ACC read-CVB AUX-PRS
‘He is reading / has read the book.’
Another type of viewpoint aspectual gram, attested in many
Niger-Congo languages as well as in, e.g., Inuktitut and a
number of creoles, is the so-called default aspect
(BOHNEMEYER/SWIFT 2004) or factative (the term introduced by
WELMERS 1973: 311 and widely used in the Africanist tradition),
i.e. a default assignment of perfective resp. imperfective
viewpoint to predicates of certain actional types. Thus, in Jalonke
unmarked stative verbs are imperfective (7a) while unmarked
dynamic verbs are perfective (7b) and require overt markers for
imperfective viewpoint (7c).
(7) Jalonke (Mande, West Africa)
a. Taanu jafun.
‘Taanu is mad.’ (LÜPKE 2005: 162)
b. Adama tugan.
‘Adama jumped.’ (LÜPKE 2005: 148)
c. Adama tugan-ma (jump-IPF)
‘Adama is jumping.’ (LÜPKE 2005: 149)
It should be noted that the factative is not always formally
unmarked; thus, in Igbo it is expressed by a suffix (WELMERS
1973: 347, 379).
The domain of actional modifiers (sometimes referred to as
Aktionsarten) is quite broad and has not yet been explored in full
detail in typology, primarily because of the tendency towards
their derivational (i.e. lexically restricted and semantically not
fully compositional) expression and language-particular
idiosyncrasies. Two primary subdomains interfacing with other
aspectual categories can be singled out. The first one is known
under such headings as “verbal plurality” or “pluractionality”, and
has received considerable attention in typology, starting with the
classic work DRESSLER 1968 and continued by CUSIC 1981,
XRAKOVSKIJ (ed.) 1997, and SHLUINSKY 2006. Here belong, on
the one hand, such primarily derivational operators as
semelfactives (‘V once’), iteratives and frequentatives (‘V many
times’), distributives (‘V with different participants’), repetitives (‘V
again’; on these, see STOYNOVA 2013) and, on the other hand,
the primarily inflectional habitual, which denotes a stative
situation of the type ‘V occurs regularly’. The habitual meaning is
often a part of the polysemy of the general imperfective, as in
Russian (8), or of the imperfective past, as in French or
Kabardian (9), thus forming part of the expression of viewpoint
aspect.
(8) Russian
a. Deti bol’še ne čitajut knigi.
‘Children no longer read (IPF,PRS) books.’
b. Ran’še deti čitali knigi.
‘In earlier times, children used to read (IPF,PST) books.’
(9) Kabardian, Besleney dialect (= East Circassian, Northwest
Caucasian, Russia; textual example)
ǯ’apxʷed-wə χʷerəbze-č̣’e jəpe-m ze-de-gʷəš’əʔe-xe-t
thus-ADV sign-INS before-OBL REC-COM-talk-PL-PST.IPF
‘Thus they used to communicate in signs’
Specialized habituals are also attested, like in Nenets in (10);
they tend to be restricted to the past time reference (DAHL 1985:
100-102), as the English used to construction or the Lithuanian
suffix -dav in (11). Such kind of habitual grams are in principle
independent of and compatible with grams expressing viewpoint
aspect (thus, the Lithuanian Habitual Past can attach to both
perfective and imperfective verbs).
(10) Tundra Nenets (Samoyedic < Uralic, Russia; NIKOLAEVA
2014: 84)
voskresen’ja-x˚qna m’a-k˚nanaq me-s’˚ti-waq.
Sunday-LOC.PL tent-LOC.1PL be-HAB-1PL
‘We are usually at home on Sundays.’
(11) Lithuanian (Baltic < Indo-European; textual example)
Šeimininkas skaity-dav-o (read-HAB-PST.3) savo poeziją,
skambin-dav-o (play-HAB-PST.3) namų darbo fortepijonu.
‘The host used to read his poetry or play the piano of his
construction.’
The other cross-linguistically well-attested type of actional
modifier is constituted by “bounders” or “telicizers” turning
predicates into those denoting temporally bounded events of
various sorts. Such operators are best known from Slavic
languages, where prefixes originally denoting spatial orientation
with verbs of displacement have developed into actional
modifiers and ultimately into derivational markers of perfective
aspect. However, such affixes are attested in numerous other
languages, not only those related or areally close to Slavic (such
as Lithuanian, Hungarian, Georgian or Ossetic, see ARKADIEV
2014), but also elsewhere, e.g. in Qiangic (Sino-Tibetan),
Quechuan, Chadic, or some Oceanic languages. To this
category also belong English and Scandinavian verbal particles,
Chinese “coverbs” and aspectual auxiliaries or light verbs of
many languages of Eurasia, cf. (12).
(12) Urdu (Indo-Aryan < Indo-European, Pakistan; BUTT 1995:
109-110)
a. us=ne gaanaa gaa-yaa.
he.OBL=ERG song sing-PFV.SG.M
‘He sang a song.’ (neutral perfective)
b. us=ne gaanaa gaa ḍaal-aa.
he.OBL=ERG song sing put-PFV.SG.M
‘He sang a song (completely, forcefully).’ (emphatic completive)
c. vo gaanaa gaa paṛ-aa.
he.NOM song sing fall-PFV.SG.M
‘He burst out into a song.’ (inchoative)
Telicizers may denote the completion (completive, as in eat up)
or the beginning (inchoative, inceptive and ingressive) of the
event or merely its temporal boundedness (delimitative) without
completion, as exemplified by the Russian prefixed verbs in (13).
(13) Russian (own knowledge)
ona pela ‘she sang’ (imperfective, atelic)
ona s-pela pesnju ‘she sang a song’ (perfective: completive)
ona za-pela ‘she started singing’ (perfective: ingressive)
ona po-pela ‘she sang for some time’ (perfective: delimitative)
In addition to the aspectual meaning, telicizers often alter the
verb’s semantics in a more or less idiosyncratic way, cf. the
perfective derivatives of the Georgian verb c’er ‘describe; write’
in (14).
(14) Georgian (Kartvelian; TSCHENKELI 1960-1974: 2137-2138)
a-mo-c’er ‘write out’
da-mo-c’er ‘prescribe’
gada-c’er ‘rewrite’
da-c’er ‘write up’
še-mo-c’er ‘write around smth.’
ča-c’er ‘record’
Actional modifiers are in principle independent of viewpoint
operators and hence are compatible with them. Thus, Bulgarian
(LINDSTEDT 1985) has an inflectional opposition between the
perfective (Aorist) and imperfective (Imperfect) past tenses
cross-cutting the derivational aspect distinction expressed
primarily by prefixes, cf. (15).
(15) Bulgarian (Slavic < Indo-European)
a. vseki păt, kogato iz-leze-xme (out-get-IMPF.1PL) na poljana...
(Perfective + Imperfect – habitual completed situation;
LINDSTEDT 1985: 189)
‘every time when we came out (of the forest) on a meadow...’
b. A kolko pja (sing:AOR.3SG) djado Galuško ..., nikoj ne znaeše.
(Imperfective + Aorist – temporally bounded atelic situation;
LINDSTEDT 1985: 176)
‘And how long Old Galuško sang ..., nobody knew.’
c. Tja iz-pja (out-sing:AOR.3SG) pesenta za tri minuti. (Perfective
+ Aorist – completive; LINDSTEDT 1985: 170)
‘She sang the song in three minutes.’
d. Kompozitorăt piše-še (write-IMPF.3SG) nova simfonija.
(Imperfective + Imperfect – progressive; LINDSTEDT 1985: 163)
‘The composer was writing a new symphony.’
In languages where aspectual meanings are expressed by
inflectional means verbs are inherently specified for actionality
(situation type), but not for aspectual viewpoint. There are,
however, languages where verbs appear to have lexically
specified viewpoint. Thus, in Slavic, Baltic, Georgian or Mokilese,
morphologically underived verbs are predominantly imperfective
(though simplex perfectives are found as well), while in Nenets or
Mapudungun most or all simplex verbs are perfective. Actional
modifiers in such languages are able to change not only the
situation type but also the viewpoint, e.g. telicizers perfectivize
imperfective verbs while iteratives imperfectivize perfective
verbs. In some languages, e.g. in Slavic, application of actional
modifiers (and, concomitantly, viewpoint operators) can be
recursive, cf. the Russian example (16).
(16) Russian (Slavic < Indo-European, own knowledge)
a. pisa-t’ ‘write:INF’ (imperfective)
b. pod-[pisat’] ‘sign:INF (lit. under-write)’ (perfective)
c. [pod-pis]-yva-t’ ‘sign:INF’ (secondary imperfective)
d. na-[pod-pis-yva]-t’ ‘sign.a.lot:INF’ (secondary perfective)
Besides an evident semantic impact (reflected in that sentences
differing only in viewpoint aspect sometimes have different truth-
conditions, e.g. English John was crossing the street vs. John
crossed the street; see DOWTY 1979 and much subsequent
literature on the formal semantic modeling of aspect), aspectual
categories have important functions in discourse (cf. e.g. HOPPER
1979; FLEISCHMAN 1985; SMITH 2003: Ch. 4,5). It is commonly
assumed that in narratives, the perfective aspect marks
successive events of the main line (foreground), while
imperfective and resultative are used for background situations
usually simultaneous with the events of the main line. However,
languages show considerable and not yet fully investigated
variation in this domain, too. Thus, in Tzotzil (Mayan), the
alternations of the perfective and imperfective aspects signal
episode boundaries, so that the imperfective can be used both
for background and foreground events (VINOGRADOV 2014).
Zeichen zählen
18708
( double click)

Artikeltext prüfen (double click)

Please use only the following mark ups: SMALL CAPS (for authors’s names and
semantic roles), italic (for object language), bold and underline (for accentuation),
crossed and Superscript-/ Subscript as well as the combinations italic+bold and
italic+underline.
Please link references, links as well as synonyms und antonyms and figures directly
in the editorial system!

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: I thank Dmitry Gerasimov, Andrey Shluinsky and Igor

Vinogradov for very useful comments on the first draft of this article.

Place for you notes, links, synonyms, antonyms, references etc.

synonym(s):
antonym(s):
link(s):
abbreviations: 1 — 1st person; 2 — 2nd person; 3 — 3rd person; A — agent; ABS —
absolutive; ACC — accusative; ADV — adverb; AOR — aorist (= perfective past);
AUX — auxiliary verb; BEN — benefactive; COM — comitative; CVB — converb; ERG —
ergative; FUT — future; GEN — genitive; HAB — habitual; IMP — imperative; IMPF —
imperfect (= imperfective past); INF — infinitive; INS — instrumental; IO — indirect
object; IPF — imperfective; LOC — locative; M — masculine; NEG — negation; NOM —
nominative; OBL — oblique; PFV — perfective; PL — plural; PRS — present; PRSP —
prospective; PST — past; PTCL — particle; PTV — partitive; REC — reciprocal; SG —
singular; TOP — topic.

references:
ARKADIEV, P.M. 2014. Towards an areal typology of prefixal perfectivization.
Scando-Slavica 60(2), 384–405.
BERTINETTO, P.-M./DELFITTO, D. 2000. Aspect vs. actionality: Why they should
be kept apart. In: DAHL, Ö. (ed.) 2000. Tense and Aspect in the Languages of
Europe. Berlin, New York. 189–226.
BOHNEMEYER, J. / SWIFT, M. 2004. Event realization and default aspect.
Linguistics and Philosophy 27(3), 263–296.
BREU, W. 1994. Interactions between lexical, temporal, and aspectual meanings.
Studies in Language 18(1), 23–44.
BUTT, M. 1995. The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. Stanford.
BYBEE, J. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form.
Amsterdam/ Philadelphia.
BYBEE, J./ DAHL, Ö. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the
languages of the world. Studies in Language 13(1), 51–103.
BYBEE, J./ PERKINS, R.D./ PAGLIUCA, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar.
Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago, London.
COGHILL, E. The grammaticalization of prospective aspect in a group of Neo-
Aramaic dialects. Diachronica 27(3), 359–410.
COMRIE, B. 1976. Aspect. A Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems.
Cambridge.
CUSIC, D.D. 1981. Verbal Plurality and Aspect. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford
University.
DAHL, Ö. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford.
DAHL, Ö./ VELUPILLAI, V. Perfective/imperfective aspect. In: DRYER, M./
HASPELMATH, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online.
wals.info/feature/65A.
DICKEY, S.M. 2016. Lexical and grammatical aspect. In: RIEMER, N. (ed.), The
Routledge Handbook of Semantics. London, New York. 338–353.
DOWTY, D.R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht.
DRESSLER, W.U. 1968. Studien zur verbalen Pluralität. Iterativum, Distributivum,
Durativum, Intensivum in der allgemeinen Grammatik, im Lateinischen und
Hethitischen. Wien.
EBERT, K.H. 1995. Ambiguous perfect-progressive forms across languages. In:
BERTINETTO, P.M./ BIANCHI, V./ HIGGINBOTHAM, J./ DAHL, Ö./ SQUARTINI, M.
(eds.). Temporal Reference, Aspect and Actionality, Vol. 2. Torino. 185–204.
FLEISCHMAN, S. 1985. Discourse functions of tense-aspect oppositions in
narrative. Linguistics 23. 851–882.
HOPPER, P.J. 1979. Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In: GIVÓN, T. (ed.),
Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 12. Discourse and Syntax. New York. 213–241.
HUUMO, T. 2010. Nominal aspect, quantity, and time: The case of the Finnish
object. Journal of Linguistics 46. 83–125.
KLEIN, W. 1994. Time in Language. London, New York.
LINDSTEDT, J. 1985. On the Semantics of Tense and Aspect in Bulgarian. Helsinki.
LÜPKE, F. 2005. A Grammar of Jalonke Argument Structure. Utrecht.
MASLOV, JU.S. 1978. K osnovanijam sopostavitel’noj aspektologii [Prolegomena to
comparative aspectology]. In: MASLOV, JU.S (ed.), Voprosy sopostavitelʹnoj
aspektologii [Problems of comparative aspectology]. Leningrad., 4–44.
NEDJALKOV, V.P. (ed.) 1988. Typology of Resultative Constructions. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia.
NIKOLAEVA, I. 2014. Tundra Nenets. Berlin, Boston.
NISHIYAMA, A./ KOENIG, J.-P. 2010. What is a perfect state? Language 86(3),
611–646.
OGIHARA, T. 1998. The ambiguity of the -te iru form in Japanese. Journal of East
Asian Linguistics 7. 87–120.
SHLUINSKY, A. 2006. K tipologii predikatnoj množestvennosti: organizacija
semantičeskoj zony [Towards a typology of verbal plurality: The structure of the
semantic space]. Voprosy jazykoznanija 1: 46–75.
SMITH, C. 1991[1997]. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht (2nd ed. 1997).
SMITH, C. 2003. Modes of Discourse. The Local Structure of Texts. Cambridge.
STOYNOVA, N.M. 2013. Pokazateli refaktiva [Repetitive markers]. Moscow.
TATEVOSOV, S.T. 2002. The parameter of actionality. Linguistic Typology 6(3),
317–401.
TSCHENKELI, K. 1960-1974. Georgisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch. Bearb. von
Yolanda Marchev. Fasz. 1–26. Zürich.
VENDLER, Z. 1967. Verbs and times. In: VENDLER, Z. Linguistics in Philosophy.
Ithaca, New York. 97–121.
VINOGRADOV, I. 2014. Aspect switching in Tzotzil (Mayan) narratives. Oklahoma
Working Papers in Indigenous Languages 1. 39–54
WELMERS, W.E. 1973. African Language Structures. Berkeley.
XRAKOVSKIJ, V.S. (ed.) 1997. Typology of Iterative Constructions. München,
Newcastle.