See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/285002935

Romance "aspectual" periphrases: Eventuality modification versus

"syntactic" aspect

Article · January 2004

CITATIONS READS

29 221

1 author:

Brenda Laca
Universidad de la República de Uruguay
55 PUBLICATIONS   605 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Variation and temporal semantics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Brenda Laca on 31 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

Brenda Laca
Université de Paris 8/ UMR 7023-CNRS
« Chapter 15 : Romance ‘aspectual’ periphrases : eventuality modification
versus ‘syntactic’ aspect ». In : J. Lecarme et J. Guéron (sld). The Syntax of
Time. Cambridge MA, MIT Press. 425-440.

Introduction
The Romance languages exhibit a variety of constructions comprising an
infinitive or gerund as “main predicator” and a higher verb (or verb
idiom) that are, in very general terms, linked to the expression of time-
related notions.1 The higher verb is either an “aspectualizer”, i.e. a
superlexical verb denoting not an eventuality but a part of the temporal
structure of any eventuality, such as ‘begin’, ‘finish‘ (see Smith 1991 on
the notion of “superlexical” verb), or a verb of motion or location, such
as ‘go’, ‘follow’, ‘return’. Such constructions, traditionally classified as
“aspectual periphrases”, are to a certain extent recursive, so that more
than one higher verb can be associated with a single “main predicator”: 2

(1)F a. Les cloches venaient de cesser de sonner.

The bells cameIMPF of cease of ring.
‘The bells had just stopped ringing’
I b. Torna a cominciare a cantare.
Returns to begin to sing.
‘He/she begins to sing again’
S c. Estaba por seguir cantando.
Was by follow singing.
‘He/she was about to continue / resume singing’
 2

In this paper, I will argue that periphrases distribute over at least two
different levels of structure, a lower “lexical” level at which the temporal
structure of the eventuality is modified (lexical or situation aspect,
Aktionsart) and a higher “functional” level at which non-deictic
temporal relations are expressed (syntactic aspect). The evidence for this
comes mainly from the relative order of periphrases and from the
different nature of the constraints governing their combination. This
evidence will be shown to correlate with the semantic contribution and
the combinatorial behavior of the periphrases as regards the aspectual
class of the “main predicator”, on the one hand, and tense morphology,
on the other.

1. Romance aspectual periphrases and functional structure

Though admittedly not homogeneous, the behavior of Romance
periphrases differs from that of typical biclausal constructions
containing an embedded or adjunct non-finite clause on several
accounts. The higher/finite verb seems to be semantically defective, so
that the whole construction inherits the argument structure and
selectional restrictions of the main predicator. Furthermore,
anaphorization patterns for the main predicator and its
arguments/adjuncts are variable, and they do not coincide with those of
infinitival or gerundial clauses. Some periphrastic constructions allow
for “null-complement”-anaphora (2a), others are only compatible with
“do-it”-anaphora (2b), and others still allow for anaphoric substitution
 3

by adverbial clitics (Cat. hi, Fr, y, It. ci/vi), though only marginally so
(2c). On the other hand, none of them allow for the anaphoric
substitution by neutral pronouns that characterizes propositional (CP)
anaphora (2d vs 2e).

(2)F a. Il doit parler, mais il n’a pas encore commencé (à le faire).

He must speak, but he not has PAS still begun (to do it)
‘He has to speak, but he hasn’t begun yet.
b. Il doit parler, et il va *(le faire).
He must speak and he goes *(it do).
‘He has to speak and he’s going to do it’
c. Il devait travailler, et il s’y est mis de bonne heure.
He mustIMPF work and he REFL-Y is put of good hour
‘He had to work, and he started early’
d. Il voulait travailler pour vous. Il a toujours aspiré à cela.
He wantedIMPF work for you. He has always aspired to that.
‘He wanted to work for you. He’s always aspired to that’
e. *Et voilà qu’il commence / va/ se met à cela.
And behold that he begins/goes/REFL put to that
‘And he is starting/going to/ setting out to do it’

Most importantly, aspectual periphrases are one of the main domains for
restructuring effects such as clitic climbing (3a), object agreement with
medio-passives (3b) and auxiliary switch (3c):
 4

(3)S a. Lo terminaré de leer hoy.

It I-will-finish to read today.
‘I’ll finish reading it today’
b. Se empiezan a conocer los detalles del accidente.
REFL. beginPLUR to know the details of-the accident.
‘The details of the accident are beginning to be known’
I c. Ha cominciato/ E cominciata a cadere la pioggia.
Has begun/ Is begun to fall the rain.
‘The rain has started to fall’

Both syntactic restructuring and semantic transparency effects suggest

that these combinations involve a monoclausal structure built around a
single full lexical predicate, the main predicator. In recent years, a
wealth of evidence has accumulated in favor of the monoclausality
hypothesis, tending to show that restructuring phenomena are linked to
the deficiency of the projection of the main predicator, which apparently
lacks both a CP and a TP layer (Wurmbrand 1998). This raises the issue
of the syntactic and semantic status of the higher/finite verbs in such
constructions.
In recent work by Cinque (1998, 1999, 2000), an answer to this
much debated question is proposed in which constraints on the relative
order of periphrases play a major role. Cinque argues for a cross-
linguistically invariant, highly articulated hierarchy of functional
projections.The higher/finite verbs in periphrastic constructions are,
according to his proposal, ‘functional’ verbs that lexicalize a functional
 5

(aspectual or modal) head and take as arguments either lower functional

projections or a VP projection Monoclausality is thus modeled as a
single lexical projection embedded under a possibly very complex
functional architecture. Relying on the widely held assumption that
functional structure is rigid, the rigid order effects that seem to obtain
cross-linguistically for aspectual particles and affixes, as well as for
adverbials, are taken as evidence for the assumed hierarchy of functional
projections. Parallel rigid order effects in the case of restructuring
constructions should follow naturally, if the higher verbs of such
constructions are directly inserted into the corresponding functional
heads.
The proposed tentative hierarchy is reproduced under (4):

(4) ...Asp habitual [It. solere] > Asp delayed (or ‘finally’) [It. finire per]
> Asp predispositional [It. tendere a] > Asp repetitive(I) [It. tornare a] >
Asp frequentative (I) > Mod volition > Asp celerative (I) > Asp
terminative [It. smettere di] > Asp continuative [It. continuare a]> Asp
perfect > Asp retrospective [Ib.-rom. acabar de 2]> Asp proximative >
Asp durative > Asp progressive [It. stare+GER] > Asp prospective [It.
stare per]> Asp inceptive (I) [It. cominciare a]> Mod obligation > Mod
ability > Asp frustrative/success [It. (non) riuscire a]> Mod permission >
Asp conative [It. provare a/tentare di]> Asp completive (I) [It. finire di]>
(Voice) > Asp celerative (II) > Asp inceptive (II) [It. cominciare a]> Asp
completive (II) [It. finire di]> Asp repetitive (II) [It. tornare a]> Asp
 6

frequentative (II)... (Cinque 1998: 15, 1999:106)

Even setting entirely aside the question of the theoretical or conceptual

desirability of such a proliferation of functional heads, Cinque’s
hierarchy does not provide a satisfactory answer to the related questions
of the status of periphrastic verbs and their configurational position.
Indeed, the hierarchy can be shown to be descriptively inadequate, and
this for reasons that deprive it of much of its purported explanatory
value.
First, obvious cases of acceptable alternative orderings exist,
such as those illustrated in (5) and (6):

(5)I a. Torna a stare per piangere.

Returns to be for cry.
‘ He/she’s again on the brink of tears’
b. Sta per tornare a piangere.
Is for return to cry.
‘ He/she’s about to cry again’

(6)S a. Los amigos empezaron a dejar de venir.

The friends began to leave of come.
‘Friends were gradually ceasing to come by’
b. Dejaron de empezar a trabajar al alba.
Left of begin to work at dawn.
 7

‘They ceased to start working at dawn’

Some of the cases of apparently non-rigid order are accommodated in

the hierarchy by positing two different aspectual heads with the same
expression and roughly the same content, but occupying different
positions: a “higher” and a “lower” repetitive head (respectively, Asp
repetitive(I) and Asp repetitive(II)), a “higher” and a “lower” inceptive
head, etc. This strategy seems to be ad hoc and applying it repeatedly
deprives the hierarchy of much of its initial attractiveness. Alternative
orderings exist, they are semantically relevant, and semantic differences
among them boil down to what may be expected from composition, as in
the case of “normal” embedding constructions.
Second, the hierarchy is not sufficiently restrictive, since it fails
to rule out a host of unacceptable combinations. Some are exemplified in
(7):

(7)I a. ??Finisce di cominciare a cantare. [completive I > inceptive II]

Finishes of begin to sing.
‘He/she is finishing to begin to sing’
’ b. ??Torna a stare cantando. [repetitive I > progressive]
Returns to be singing.
‘He/she is again singing’
S c. *Suele acabar de salir. [habitual > retrospective]
Uses finish of go out.
‘Usually, he has just gone out’
 8

F d. *Il continue de venir de sortir. [continuative > retrospective]

He follows of come of go out.
‘He continues having just gone out’

These descriptive inadequacies are not of the sort that could be

corrected with minor adjustments to the tentative version of the
hierarchy given in (4).In fact, its explanatory value is undermined by the
conspiration of two factors: (a) putative aspectual heads should have to
be partially ordered, so as to account for ordering options; (b) factors
alien to functional structure will have to be invoked in order to rule out
combinations such as in (7). A more satisfactory approach should be
able to capture the partial ordering effects that do obtain.

2. Two layers of aspectual periphrases

2.1. Rigid vs. semantically constrained order
The basic analogy on which the present proposal is built comes from the
realm of morphology, where comparably complex patterns involving
partial ordering effects are well known. The proposal comprises the two
following hypotheses:
(i) the relative order of aspectual periphrases is in some cases rigid and
in other cases semantically constrained, thus manifesting the same
difference in ordering principles that distinguishes inflectional and
derivational morphology;
(ii) the rigidly ordered domain corresponds to syntactic aspect, and
therefore to functional architecture, whereas the semantically
 9

constrained domain corresponds to eventuality modification (lexical

aspect).
The distinction between rigid and potentially free ordering of
affixes is traditionally viewed as one of the subsidiary criteria for
distinguishing between syntactic morphology (inflection) and lexical
morphology (derivation) (see Scalise 1988, Anderson 1992). The
ordering of inflectional affixes is fixed and/or semantically irrelevant: it
can be assumed to mirror the ordering of functional categories in the
architecture of the projection. In contrast, the relative order of
derivational affixes is potentially free and semantically relevant. It
reflects the order of derivational operations on a base, even if a host of
factors conspire to make alternative orderings in derivational
morphology extremely rare. Derivational affixes and/or the semantic
operations of which they are an exponent impose a number of
constraints on their bases, so that the exclusion of a given ordering can
be explained by the intrinsic properties of the elements involved, in
particular by the properties of categorial and semantic selection that
prevent them from combining with certain bases (together with a number
of much more complex factors restricting lexical productivity).
Furthermore, it is well known that inflectional affixes are
peripheral (farther from the root) in comparison with derivational affixes
(see, among many others, Anderson 1992: 126 and passim). This
characteristic ordering, often alluded to as the “inflection outside
derivation” universal, is actually a consequence of the fact that
functional projections are external wrt the lexical items they associate
 10

with.
A closer look at the ordering possibilities of aspectual
periphrases reveals a parallel split between a more peripheral domain of
rigidly ordered elements and a less peripheral domain in which their
relative order is semantically relevant and semantically constrained. The
periphrases listed in Table 1 belong to the first, those listed in Table 2 to
the second domain.3

[INSERT TABLE 1 HERE]

[INSERT TABLE 2 HERE]

The periphrases in Table 1 can precede those in Table 2, as shown in (8),

but cannot be preceded by them, as shown in (9):4

(8)F a. Il vient de {se mettre à/arrêter de/finir de} corriger les

épreuves.
He comes of{REFL-put to/stop of/finish of} correct the proofs.
‘ He has just started/stopped/ finished correcting the proofs’
I b.Sta {tornando a/cominciando a/ finendo di}riparare la
macchina.
Is {returning to/beginning to/finishing of} repair the car.
 11

‘ He/she is repairing again/ starting / stopping to repair the car’

S c.Va a {volver a/estar por/dejar de} corregir las pruebas.
Goes to {return to/be by/leave of} correct the proofs.
‘ He/she is going to correct again/ be about to correct/ stop
correcting the proofs’
C d. El soroll sol {anar/seguir} augmentant durant la nit
The noise uses {go/ follow} increasing during the night
‘ The noise usually increases gradually/ keeps increasing during
the night’
(9)F a. *Il {se met à/arrête de/finit de} venir de corriger les épreuves.
He comes of{REFL-put to/stop of/finish of} correct the
proofs.
I b. *{Torna a/comincia a/ finisce di} stare riparando la macchina.
{Returns to/begins to/finishes of} be repairing the car.
S c. *{Vuelve a/está por/deja de} ir a corregir las pruebas.
{Return to/be by/leave of} correct the proofs.
C d. *El soroll va/segueix solent augmentar durant la nit.
The noise {goes/ follows} using increase during the night.

Furthermore, the co-occurrence possibilities of the periphrases in

Table 1 are severely restricted. Either they are in complementary
distribution with one another, or they exhibit rigid ordering. Thus,
habitual, prospective and retrospective periphrases are mutually
exclusive (10). They can be followed, but never preceded, by the
 12

progressive periphrasis, whereby the combinations habitual+progressive

and retrospective+progressive are only acceptable (and marginally so) in
Catalan and Spanish (11).5

(10)F a. # Il vient d’aller parler avec Pierre.

*RETROSP+PROSP talk with Peter
‘He has just gone to talk with Peter’
b. * Il va venir de parler avec Pierre.
*PROSP+ RETROSP talk with Peter
S c. * Suele ir a salir [*HAB+PROSP go out]
d. * Va a soler salir [*PROSP+HAB go out]
e. * Suele acabar de salir [*HAB+RETROSP go out]
f. * Acaba de soler salir [*RETROSP+HAB go out]

(11)S a. Suele estar leyendo. [HAB+PROG read]

‘He/she is usually reading’
b. *Está soliendo leer. [*PROG+HAB read]
c. Va a estar trabajando. [PROSP+PROG work]
‘He/she’s going to be working’
d. #Está yendo a trabajar. [*PROG+PROSP work]
‘He/she’s on his/her way to work’

The periphrases listed in Table 2, which occupy more internal

positions, frequently exhibit alternative ordering possibilities, as
illustrated in (12) (see also examples (6) and (7) above):
 13

(12)S a. Los amigos fueron dejando de venir.

The friends went leaving of come.
‘The friends gradually ceased to come by’
b. Dejó de ir archivando la correspondencia a medida que
llegaba.
Left of go filing the mail at measure that arrivedIMPF.
‘He/she ceased to file the mail as it arrived’
c. Estuvo por seguir cantando.
Was by follow singing.
‘He/she had been about to continue/resume singing’
d. Sigue estando por cantar.
Follows being by sing.
‘He/she is still about to sing’

Furthermore, such co-occurrence restrictions as the periphrases in Table

2 are subject to (for an example, see (7a) above) can be accounted for on
semantic grounds. They stem for the most part from an incompatibility
between the selectional restrictions of the higher periphrasis and the
temporal structure determined by the lower periphrasis, both being
factors that can be established independently. Before this point can be
illustrated, though, it is necessary to turn to the semantic contribution of
periphrases.

2.2. Lexical vs. syntactic aspect

 14

Although the distinction between lexical aspect (Aktionsart) and

syntactic aspect has been taken for granted for quite a long time, it is
neither universally accepted nor uniformly interpreted by those who
accept it. The reasons for this lie in the manyfold interferences between
both categories, in the elusive nature of syntactic aspect and in the
superficial attractiveness of proposals that treat syntactic aspect as some
sort of eventuality modification (see Kamp & Reyle 1993 and de Swart
1998 on perfect and progressive in English, and Giorgi & Pianesi 1997:
169-172 on the progressive).
Eventuality modification (the mapping of on eventuality with a
given temporal structure onto an eventuality with a possibly different
temporal structure) is clearly distinguished from syntactic aspect in the
two component approach to aspect developed by Smith (1991). Smith
distinguishes between “situation aspect”, which is lexically determined
and corresponds to the temporal structure of eventualities, and
“viewpoint aspect”, which is grammatically determined and corresponds
formally to a relationship between an eventuality and a designated
interval of “visibility”, this interval being what is actually accessible to
temporal location (see in particular Smith 1991 : 146ss.).
While situation aspect is often a covert semantic category,
languages also have devices for eventuality modification that overtly
determine it.6 These comprise “light” verbs, affixes or particles that
derive eventualities corresponding to temporal sectors of basic
eventualities or impose a given temporal structure on an otherwise
 15

underdetermined verb. The semantic contribution of the periphrases

listed in Table 2 fits exactly into this description. Thus, inceptive,
terminative and completive periphrases have as their output eventualities
corrresponding to the initial or (arbitrary or natural) final endpoints of
the “basic” eventuality description. More interestingly,
repetitive/restitutive, intransformative and gradual accomplishment
periphrases derive eventualities with very specific temporal structures
which also characterize certain lexical verbs. Repetitive/restitutive
periphrases presuppose that an instantiation of the same type of
eventuality has previously obtained, which corresponds roughly to the
temporal structure of a verb like ‘replace’. Intransformative periphrases
presuppose that a subpart of the same eventuality has previously
obtained, which corresponds roughly to the temporal structure of a verb
like ‘remain’ . Finally, gradual accomplishment periphrases impose an
incremental temporal structure analogous to that of degree predicates
such as ‘widen’.
Most incompatibilities among the periphrases in Table 2 are
grounded in their semantics. Thus, (13a) is excluded because the lower
inceptive periphrasis returns an achievement, which is incompatible with
the selectional restrictions of the higher verb (i.e. for the same reasons
that render “The train finished arriving” semantically deviant).
Analogously, the sequence in (13b) is excluded for the same reasons that
render “Peter ceased to remain at the party” bizarre.

(13)I a. ??Finisce di cominciare a cantare.

 16

Finishes of begin to sing.

S b. ??Dejó de seguir cantando.
Leave of follow singing.

Note, furthermore, that semantic incompatibilities can in principle be

circumvented by contextual reinterpretation (see in particular de Swart
1998 on coercion effects), so that some apparently excluded
combinations among eventuality modification periphrases could turn out
to be possible. But no amount of contextual reinterpretation can salvage
the excluded orders in (9-11) above.

2.3. Syntactic aspect

Building on Smith (1991) and on the notion of aspect as a temporal
relation suggested by Klein (1995), Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria
(1997, 2002) develop a full-fledged model of temporal relations in
which aspectual heads are conceived of as two-place predicates
expressing topological relations between two intervals, the interval of
the eventuality (EV-T) and the interval accesible to temporal location, or
interval to which the assertion is confined (AST-T).7 Under their
account, only three topological relations are possible: AST-T can be
located before, after or inside EV-T. Now, the semantics of three of the
four periphrases listed in Table 1 can be accurately described by
assuming that they express precisely such relations, prospective
corresponding to [ AST-T before EV-T], retrospective to [AST-T after
 17

EV-T] and progressive to [AST-T inside EV-T]. The habitual

periphrasis, however, does not correspond to viewpoint aspect, but is an
overt expression of generic quantification, whose semantics matches
closely that of frequency adverbs. We are thus led to the assumption that
the higher, functional layer of aspectual periphrases, express either time-
relational aspect or generic quantification. They occupy an intermediate
position between the full VP projection associated to an eventuality
description (possibly comprising one or more layers of eventuality
modifiers) and the temporal head responsible for establishing deictic or
anaphoric temporal relations, as illustrated in (14):

(14) [TP [ASPP [ event. descr .VP

event. modifier [VP
event. modifier [VP
main predicator ]]]]

Syntactic aspect periphrases impose only very general conditions

on the eventuality descriptions they take as arguments. As an expression
of generic quantification, the habitual periphrasis requires several
possible instantiations of the eventuality, thus excluding once-only
events and individual-level states (15a). The retrospective periphrasis
requires eventualities which are conceived of as having endpoints, thus
excluding individual-level states (15b). The progressive periphrasis
shows much the same profile as its English counterpart, giving rise to
preliminary-stage interpretations with achievements (15c) and to
dynamic or temporary interpretations with habits (15d).

(15)I a. #Soleva essere biondo.

 18

UsedIMPF be blond.
‘He was in the habit of being blond’
F b. #Il venait d’être blond.
He cameIMPF of be blond.
S c. Estaba llegando el tren.
WasIMPF arriving the train
‘The train was arriving’
C d. Estan pagant lloguers molt alts.
Are paying rents very high.
‘They are paying very high rents’

On the other hand, syntactic aspect periphrases are severely restricted as

to the tenses they can combine with. In this they clearly differ from the
periphrases in Table 2, which can appear in all tenses. Habitual soler(e)
is a defective verb, having only those forms corresponding to the present
and the imperfective past. Retrospective periphrases are only possible
with the present, with the imperfective past and (somewhat marginally)
with the future.The same holds of the Italian progressive periphrasis. As
for the prospective periphrases, they suffer major changes when they
appear in tenses other than the present and the imperfective past (see
Olbertz 1998, Bravo 1999). In particular, they lose the ability to take
states and habits as arguments and to precede a number of eventuality
modification periphrases:

(16)S a. La película le iba / *fue a gustar.

 19

The movie to-him wentIMPF/ went to please.

‘He would like the movie’
b. Iba a / *Fue a dejar de llover.
WentIMPF/ went to leave of rain.
‘It was going to stop raining’

These changes indicate that prospective aspect only surfaces in the

present and imperfective past, whereas in other tenses, the corresponding
form so to say slides down into the eventuality modification domain. It
functions as a particular sort of imminential periphrasis, requiring
agentivity and/or temporal contiguity and patterns like the periphrases
in Table 2.
Comparably radical changes arise when the Ibero-romance
progressive periphrases appear in the perfective past or in perfect tenses
(Laca 2002a). Thus, for instance, estar + Gerund in the simple
(perfective) past cannot precede other periphrases (17a), it cannot
combine with “gradual accomplishment” predicates(17b), nor with
predicates overtly marked as telic by adverbs (17c) or by the reflexive
clitic (17d; on the reflexive as a telicity marker, see Nishida 1994, Barra
Jover 1996):

(17)S a. Estaba /??Estuvo empezando a / dejando de llover.

‚It wasIMPF/??wasSP beginning / ceasing to rain’
b. Los precios estaban / ??estuvieron aumentando poco a poco.
‚Prices wereIMPF/ ??wereSP rising little by little’
 20

c. Estaban /??Estuvieron destruyendo totalmente la casa.

‚They wereIMPF/ ??wereSP completely destroying the house.
d. Se estaba/ ?? estuvo comiendo toda la comida.
‚He/she REFL-wasIMPF/ ??wasSP eating up all the food’

This suggests that estar+ Gerund in Iberomance can also oscillate

between a time-relational (progressive) and an eventuality modification
status (with activities or temporary states as output) according to the
tense involved (see also Squartini 1998).

The curious tense restrictions affecting syntactic aspect

periphrases seem to point in the same direction as a hypothesis put forth
by Rivero (1994), according to which functional (as opposed to lexical)
auxiliaries are characterized by defective morphology. But it might be
possible to discover a deeper rationale for these restrictions, a rationale
involving the non-recursivity of syntactic aspect and the aspectual
peculiarities of the Romance tense system.8 Recursive time-relational
aspect, as assumed by Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria (1997, 2002),
poses no less conceptual problems than recursive temporal location, so
that a solution involving a single functional aspectual projection per
clause should be strived for. Such a solution could capitalize on the
intermediate structural position of syntactic aspect between eventuality
modification and temporal location and on the possibility for some
periphrastic constructions to function at more than one level of structure,
a possibility that is presupposed in formal accounts of grammaticization
 21

processes (see for instance Roberts 1992, D’Hulst 2002).

Concluding remarks
I have tried to show that the relative order of Romance “aspectual”
periphrases does not provide evidence for the existence of a hierarchy of
functional aspectual heads, but rather for the existence of two different
domains, a lower domain at which eventuality modification is expressed
and a higher domain of functional or “syntactic” aspect. Eventuality
modification periphrases are freely ordered, but they impose various
selectional restrictions on the eventualities they apply to. They have
specific temporal structures as their output, and show no tense
restrictions. “Syntactic” aspect periphrases have much wider
combinatorial possibilities as to the eventualities they may apply to, but
are rigidly ordered. They express non-deictic temporal relations or
generic quantification and either show defective tense morphology or are
subject to major combinatorial and semantic changes when occurring in
some tenses, a property which calls for further research.

References

Anderson, S. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Barra Jover, M. 1996. “Dativo de interés, dativo aspectual y las marcas
de aspecto perfectivo en español”. Verba 23. 121-146.
 22

Barroso, H. 1994. O aspecto verbal perifrástico em português

contemporâneo. Porto: Porto Editora.
Bertinetto, P.-M. 1990. “Le perifrasi verbali italiane: saggio di analisi
descrittiva e contrastiva”. Quaderni Patavini di Linguistica 8-9. 27-64.
Bravo, A. 1999. Aspectos de la gramática de ir a + Infinitivo.
Licenciatura Thesis. Universidad Complutense, Madrid.
Butt, M.& G. Ramchand. 2001. Complex Aspectual Structure in
Hindi/Urdu. ms. Universität Konstanz & Oxford University.
Cinque, G. 1998. “’Restructuring’ and the Order of Aspectual and Root
Modal Heads”. Univ. of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 8.
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. New York: Oxford
Univ. Press.
Cinque, G. 2000. “Restructuring” and functional structure. ms.
University of Venice.
Demirdache, H. & M.Uribe-Etxebarria. 1997. “The Syntactic Primitives
of Temporal Relations”, Talk given at Langues & Grammaires 3,
Univ. de Paris 8.
Demirdache, H.& M.Uribe-Etxebarria. 2002. “La grammaire des
prédicats spatio-temporels: temps, aspect et adverbes de temps”. In
Laca ed. (2002). 125-176.
D’Hulst, Y. 2002. “Le développement historique des propritétés
temporelles du conditionnel français et italien”. In Laca ed. (2002).81-
98.
Dietrich, W. 1973. Das periphrastische Verbalaspekt in den romanischen
Sprachen. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
 23

Gavarrò, A.& B. Laca. 2002. “Les perífrasis temporals, aspectuals i

modals”. Gramàtica del Català Contemporani, Vol. 3: Sintaxi, ed. by
J. Solà & al. Barcelona: Empúries. 2663-2726.
Giorgi, A. & F. Pianesi. 1997. Tense and Aspect. From Semantics to
Morphosyntax.New York: Oxford University Press.
Guéron, J. 2002. “Sur la syntaxe de l’aspect”. In Laca ed. (2002). 99-
121.
Hernanz, M.L. & G. Rigau 1984. “Auxiliaritat i reestructuració”. Els
Marges 31. 29-51.
Kamp, E. & U. Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Klein, W. 1995. “A Time-Relational Analysis of Russian Aspect”,
Language 71 (4). 669-695.
Laca, B. 2002. “Spanish ‘Aspectual’ Periphrases: Ordering Constraints
and the Distinction Between Situation and Viewpoint Aspect”, From
Words to Discourse: Trends in Spanish Semantics and Pragmatics ed.
by J. Gutiérrez-Rexach.Oxford: Elsevier.
Laca, B. 2002a. “L’aspect est-il récursif? A propos du Progressif dans
las langues romanes”. Talk given at the Round Table on the Formal
Semantics of Aspect, Université Paris 7, May 2002.
Laca, B. ed. 2002. Temps et aspect. De la morphologie à l’interprétation.
Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.
Laca, B. (in prep.) Periphrastic Aspect and the Aspectual Profile of
Romance Tenses.
Nishida, C. 1994. “The Spanish reflexive clitic as an aspectual class
 24

marker”. Linguistics 32. 425-458.

Olbertz, H. 1998. Verbal Periphrases in a Functional Grammar of
Spanish. Berlin: Mouton/de Gruyter.
Rivero, M.L. 1994. “Auxiliares léxicos y auxiliares funcionales”,
Gramática del español ed. by V. Demonte. Mexico: El Colegio de
México.
Roberts, I. 1992. “A Formal Account of Grammaticalisation in the
History of Romance Futures”. Folia Linguistica Historica 13.1-2. 219-
258.
Scalise, S. 1988. “Inflection and Derivation”. Linguistics 26. 561-581.
Smith, C.S. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Squartini, M. 1998. Verbal Periphrases in Romance. Berlin: Mouton/de
Gruyter.
de Swart, H. 1998. “Aspect Shift and Coercion”. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 16. 347-385.
Wurmbrand, S. 1998. Infinitives. Ph.D.Dissertation. MIT.

Notes
1 I’d like to thank audiences at Université Paris 7 (Tense and Aspect
Colloquium, 2000), The Bosphorus University in Istanbul (Word Order
Colloquium, 2001), Universidad Menéndez y Pelayo in Santander and at
the Langues & Grammaire seminar of Université Paris 8 for valuable
remarks and suggestions. I’m particularly indebted to J. Guéron, J.
Lecarme and J. Lowenstamm for comments, judgements and suggestions
 25

. For a more detailed discussion of a number of issues that cannot be

developed in this contribution, see Laca (2002) and Laca (in prep.). The
literature on Romance aspectual periphrases is abundant. Barroso
(1994), Bertinetto (1990), Gavarrò & Laca (2002) and particularly
Olbertz (1998) and Squartini (1998) are among the most recent and
detailed descriptions.
2 Initial capitals are used throughout to identify the languages of the
examples: C(atalan), F(rench), I(talian), P(ortuguese), S(panish).
3 While the list in Table 1 is exhaustive, Table 2 only contains the most
characteristic or frequently occurring constructions.
4 For reasons of space, I only illustrate part of the combinatory. For the
full pattern of Spanish, see Laca (2002).
5 # before unacceptable combinations signals the unavailability of the
pertinent reading. Since aller/ir a + Inf. also exhibits a reading as a
movement verb + directional/final infinitive, and acabar de+ Inf. also
has a completive reading (acabar de+ Inf.1 ‘finish doing something’),
some sequences are grammatical, but not with the meanings under
discussion.
6 The following informal characterizations of the semantic contribution
of eventuality modification periphrases are phrased as if the whole
construction expressed an operator mapping eventualities onto (temporal
sectors or structures) of eventualities. This does not preclude the
possibility of more compositional analyses, possibly on the lines
suggested by Butt & Ramchand (2001).
7 AST-T can be conceived of as a “conflation” of Smith’s designated
 26

interval of visibility and the Reichenbachian Reference Time. It can, like

the latter, precede or follow EV-T, but it can also be properly included
or be coextensive with EV-T, as is the case with Smith’s “imperfective”
(or rather, “progressive”) and “perfective” viewpoints, respectively.
8 As pointed out in Laca (2002a), these tense restrictions exclude first
and foremost the simple (perfective) past, which happens to be the only
simple tense whose aspectual contribution is uncontroversial (something
that definitely does not apply to the “imperfective past”). It can thus be
hypothesized that all simple tenses in Romance, to the exception of the
simple (perfective) past, are aspectually unmarked and do not project
their own aspectual head.Note that the tense restrictions affecting
syntactic aspect periphrases also hold to a large extent in the case of so-
called “compound tenses” (HABERE-TENERE-ESSE+past participle),
which can be interpreted as expressions of perfect aspect (see
Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria 2002). While Portuguese does not allow
for the auxiliary in the perfective past in compound tenses (*teve
comido ‘(he/she) hadSP eaten, see Giorgi & Pianesi 1997 : 51), the
corresponding combinations in the other Romance languages (passé
antérieur, trapassato remoto, etc) are severely restricted and show
Aktionsart peculiarities that are not shared by the other compound
tenses. In fact, grammars often describe passé antérieur, trapassato
remoto,etc as a completive form specifying telicity rather than mere
relative anteriority. This suggests that combinations such as I. fu partito,
S. hubo salido ‘(he/she) wasSP/hadSP gone out’ belong to the realm of
eventuality modification.
 27

Table 1 : Syntactic aspect periphrases

HABITUAL PROSPECTIVE RETROSPECTIVE PROGRESSIVE

F aller+INF venir de+INF [être en train
de+INF]
I solere+INF stare+GER
C soler+INF acabar de+INF2 estar+GER
S soler+INF ir a+INF acabar de+INF2 estar+GER
P costumar+INF ir a+INF Acabar de+INF2 estar+GER/a+INF

Table 2 : Eventuality Modification Periphrases

F C S P I
Repetitive/ Tornar a+INF Volver a+INF Voltar a+INF Tornare
restitutive a+INF
Intransfor- Continuer Continuar+GER, Continuar+GER, Continuar+GER/ Continua
mative à+INF seguir+GER seguir+GER a+INF a+INF
Continuative Stare a+I
Gradual Anar+GER Ir+GER Ir+GER Andare+G
accomplishment
Distributive Anar+GER Andar+GER Andar+GER/a+INF Andare+G
Imminential Être sur le Anar a+INF, Estar por+INF Estar para/por+INF Stare
(preliminary point estar a punt per+INF
stages) de+INF de+INF
Inceptive Commençer Començar Empezar a+INF, Começar a+INF, Comincia
(initial phase) à+INF, se a/de+INF, ponerse a+INF pôr-se a+INF a+INF,
mettre posar-se a+INF mettersi
à+INF a+INF
Terminative Cesser Deixar de+INF, Dejar de+INF, Deixar de+INF, Smettere
de+INF, parar de+INF parar de+INF parar de+INF di+INF,
arrêter cessare d
de+INF +INF
Completive Finir Acabar de+INF1 Acabar Acabar de+INF1, Finire
de+INF de+INF1, terminar de+INF di+INF
terminar de+INF

View publication stats