The progressive form and the non-progressive form in English: the theory of 'Susceptibility to Change'

THE PROGRESSIVE FORM AND THE NON-PROGRESSIVE FORM IN ENGLISH: THE THEORY OF ‘SUSCEPTIBILITY TO CHANGE’1 CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS* University of Bari, Italy ABSTRACT In this article the writer examines the difference between the progressive form and the simple (non-progressive) form in English by applying the theory of ‘susceptibility to change’. It is argued that the use of the progressive form implies a situation that is in some way susceptible to change, while the use of the non-progressive form implies that there is no idea of susceptibility to change. The writer analyses 23 different cases covering a wide range of situations and tenses in order to verify how this theory works in practice. Aspectual features, notably imperfectivity/perfectivity, but also features relating to Aktionsart, i.e. punctuality/durativity, stativity/non-stativity, telicity/atelicity, are also considered in the light of the works of leading theorists in tense and aspect, such as Hirtle, Comrie, Bertinetto and, in particular, Declerck. KEY WORDS Progressive, non-progressive, susceptibility to change, (im)perfectivity, (non)durativity, (non)stativity, (a)telicity. RESUMEN En este artículo el autor analiza la diferencia entre la forma progresiva y la forma simple (no progresiva) en inglés aplicando la teoría de ‘susceptibilidad al cambio’. De acuerdo con ella, el uso de la forma progresiva implica CAUCE, Revista de Filología y su Didáctica, nº 24, 2001 / págs. 87-117 87 1I wish to thank John McRae for his encouragement in the initial stages of the writing of this article. I am deeply indebted to Professor Renaat Declerk for kindly reading through my article in its draft stage and for his invaluable comments, insights and suggestions. I remain, of course, solely responsible for any errors that may be found in the article. * Christopher Williams is a researcher of English at the Faculty of Political Science at the University of Bari in Italy. He has published books on the culture and civilization of English-speaking countries and has specialized in the translation from Italian into English of legal texts, especially labour law. In the linguistics field he has written on the periphrastic form of comparison with monosyllabic adjectives and is currently preparing a book on (non)progressive aspect. CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS 88 una situación que de alguna forma es susceptible de cambiar, mientras que el uso de la forma no progresiva implica una situación que no es susceptible de cambiar. El autor analiza 23 casos distintos que cubren una amplia gama de situaciones y tiempos verbales, para comprobar si esta teoría funciona en la práctica. Junto a características aspectuales, en concreto la imperfectividad/perfectividad, también se consideran aspectos relacionados con Aktionsart, como puntualidad/duratividad, estatividad/no-estatividad y telicidad/atelicidad siguiendo los trabajos de eminentes teóricos como Hirtle, Comrie, Bertinetto y, especialmente, Declerck. PALABRAS CLAVE Progresivo, no progresivo, susceptibilidad al cambio, (im)perfectividad, (no) duratividad, (no) estaticidad, (a)telicidad. RÉSUMÉ Dans cet article l’auteur analyse la différence entre la forme progressive et la forme simple en anglais à travers l’application de la théorie de la ‘susceptibilité de changement’. Selon cette théorie l’utilisation de la forme progressive implique une situation susceptible de changement tandis que l’utilisation de la forme simple implique une situation non susceptible de changement. L’auteur analyse 23 cas différents qui couvrent une large gamme de situations et de temps pour vérifier le fonctionnement pratique de cette théorie. Il prend en considération des questions concernant l’aspect comme l’imperfectivité/perfectivité, mais aussi concernant l’Aktionsart comme la ponctualité/durativité, la stativité/non-stativité, la télicité/non-télicité, d’après les œuvres des théoriciens les plus éminents dans l’étude du temps et de l’aspect, comme Hirtle, Comrie, Bertinetto et, surtout, Declerck. MOTS-CLÉ Progressif, simple, susceptibilité de changement, (im)perfectivité, (non)durativité, (non)stativité, (non)télicité. A considerable amount of research work has been carried out over the years analysing the criterion –or criteria– for choosing between the simple form (called here the non-progressive form) and the continuous form (sometimes known as the expanded form, but called here the progressive form) in English. One reason for this interest in the two forms is that “the English Progressive has, in comparison with progressive forms in many other languages, an unusually wide range” (Comrie, 1976, p. 33). As Comrie goes on to point out, in languages such as Spanish or Italian “it is normally possible to replace the Progressive by other forms, without imply- THE PROGRESSIVE FORM AND THE NON-PROGRESSIVE FORM… 89 ing nonprogressive meaning” (1976, p. 33), e.g. the equivalent of ‘John is singing’ in Italian is ‘Gianni canta’/‘Gianni sta cantando’. Two important monographic studies on the progressive and nonprogressive forms in English are those of Hirtle (1967) and Ljung (1980). The former provides a detailed and idiosyncratically original monographic study of the two forms, adhering strictly to the dichotomy perfectivity/imperfectivity as a means of distinguishing between the nonprogressive and the progressive, while the latter –concerned primarily with the progressive form– provides an excellent overview in its opening chapter (1980, pp. 7-30) of previous studies on the subject up to 1980, even if some of his theories in subsequent chapters would seem to be wide of the mark. Interestingly, it is rare among those linguists who have attempted to distinguish between the two forms to find two analyses that are the same, though certain key features tend to recur. One question that is sometimes raised by linguists –and which was the driving force behind my own research in this field– is whether it is possible to identify a single criterion that is capable of accounting for the choice of either one or the other forms in English, or whether we need to resort to a number of different criteria. Rather than examine the various theories that have been put forward over the years, I shall come straight to the point and put one particular criterion to the test. In the ensuing development of my hypothesis, we shall inevitably be calling into play some of the other ideas that have been aired in the past, and we shall see how far they fit into this particular framework. The hypothesis I wish to put forward here concerning the underlying difference between the two forms is as follows: the use of the progressive form implies that the situation referred to in the verb may be susceptible to change in some way, while the use of the non-progressive form suggests that the situation referred to in the verb is not susceptible to change. Using the non-progressive form does not automatically entail that the general situation being described necessarily has a perceptibly more ‘permanent’ quality to it, although this is almost always the case. It may simply mean that the idea of the susceptibility to change is not uppermost in our minds at the moment when we decide to use the verb in its non-progressive form. In order to clarify this point, let us examine the sentences ‘I work nightshifts now, but I can’t do that for long’/‘I’m working nightshifts now, but I can’t do that for long’. Quite clearly, regardless of whether the non-progressive form or the progressive form is used, the situation CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS 90 of working nightshifts is perceived as being an essentially temporary one. But while the use of the progressive form (‘I’m working nightshifts now’) implies reference to an activity that is in progress –and is therefore, on the basis of our theory, inherently ‘susceptible to change’– the use of the non-progressive form (‘I work nightshifts now’) implies reference to a general state that holds at the present, no matter how uncertain the future may appear to be. In other words, when using the non-progressive form, the speaker may not necessarily be implying that the overall situation is anything other than provisional, but in deciding to use the non-progressive form he or she has made the choice of deciding to view the situation of working nightshifts as a state that holds at present rather than as an ongoing activity. We shall return to this question later (see section 14). On the basis of this theory of susceptibility to change, then, what essentially conditions our choice between the two forms is our view of ‘the way things (might) end up’, even more than how long they last or how temporary or permanent they may be. This idea of susceptibility to change has certain similarities with the one expounded by Hirtle: “The opposition between simple and progressive is therefore basically one between whole and part. An event whose material significate strikes the mind as being complete, as permitting of no further additions, will be expressed by the simple form. One which gives the impression of lacking something, of leaving room for something to come, will be expressed by the progressive” (1967, pp. 26-27). Let us now turn to some concrete examples to illustrate our point. For example, if we say (1a) ‘Inzaghi passes the ball to Totti’ (2a) ‘I chop the onion and put it into the saucepan’ (3a) ‘The Queen walks slowly up to the altar’ (4a) ‘Vladimir slowly crosses the stage and sits down beside Estragon’2 (5a) ‘Blair and family smile for the photographers’ (6a) ‘So I look through the newspaper and I see there’s a photo of an old schoolfriend’ (7a) ‘Mr Dombey goes upon a journey’3 2Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot (1956), Faber & Faber, London, 1965, p. 53. 3Charles Dickens, Dombey and Son (1848), Mandarin Paperbacks, London, 1991, p. 293. THE PROGRESSIVE FORM AND THE NON-PROGRESSIVE FORM… 91 (8a) ‘Pressure grows on EU to tighten BSE controls’ (9a) ‘Wash the dishes’ (10a) ‘Let’s go’ (11a) ‘The Earth revolves around the sun’ (12a) ‘The sun sets in the west’ (13a) ‘He always watches television’ (14a) ‘We live in London at the moment’ (15a) ‘You’re silly’ (16a) ‘I understand more about physics every single day’ (17a) ‘My back aches’ (18a) ‘I promise to pay you back’ (19a) ‘I’ve finished the article’ (20a) ‘She wrote to him’ (21a) ‘The bride wore a white dress’ (22a) ‘I arrive in Tokyo at six o’clock tomorrow’ (23a) ‘Will you use the car this evening?’ in each case it is not the susceptibility to change of the situation as expressed by the verb that is of primary interest to the speaker or writer. In all cases the situation is viewed a) as either being essentially complete in itself, and thus as not allowing for the possibility of change, or b) as continuing indefinitely into the future without there being any hint of change. Vice versa, if we say (1b) ‘Inzaghi’s passing the ball to Totti’ (2b) ‘I’m chopping the onion and putting it into the saucepan’ (3b) ‘The Queen’s walking slowly up to the altar’ (4b) *‘Vladimir is slowly crossing the stage and is sitting down beside Estragon’ (5b) ‘Blair and family are smiling for the photographers’ (6b) ‘So I’m looking through the newspaper and I’m seeing there’s a photo of an old schoolfriend’ (7b) ‘Mr Dombey is going upon a journey’ (8b) ‘Pressure is growing on EU to tighten BSE controls’ (9b) ‘Be washing the dishes’ (10b) ‘Let’s be going’ (11b) ‘The Earth is revolving around the sun’ (12b) ‘The sun is setting in the west’ (13b) ‘He’s always watching television’ (14b) ‘We’re living in London at the moment’ CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS 92 (15b) ‘You’re being silly’ (16b) ‘I’m understanding more about physics every single day’ (17b) ‘My back’s aching’ (18b) ‘I’m promising to pay you back’ (19b) ‘I’ve been finishing the article’ (20b) ‘She was writing to him’ (21b) ‘The bride was wearing a white dress’ (22b) ‘I’m arriving in Tokyo at six o’clock tomorrow’ (23b) ‘Will you be using the car this evening?’ in each instance we are concerned (albeit unconsciously in some cases) with the fact that the situations as expressed by the verbs are –or were, or have been, or will be– liable to some sort of change. Either their outcome is viewed as in some way uncertain –some form of interruption or termination of the situation is always there as a possibility, and this feature generally conveys an air of incompleteness or impermanence about the situation in question– or else we are dealing with a process which, by its very nature, is continually changing, unlike a state, and which has a beginning, a middle and an end, even if that end may sometimes be unforeseeable. Even when one says, for example, ‘Man has been evolving for millions of years’, or ‘The universe is forever expanding’, in the former case the process is perceived as an incomplete, ongoing situation which may come to an end sooner or later, while in both cases, because we are dealing with processes, the idea of continuous change (of man’s evolution or of the expansion of the universe) is an inherent part of their meaning, even when that process is perceived as lasting forever (Ljung, 1980, pp. 28-9). My theory differs from Hirtle’s in particular over the contrast between perfectivity and imperfectivity. By perfectivity we refer to a state, process or activity that is viewed in its entirety, as something complete but not necessarily completed (Comrie, 1976, p. 18), to which –as it stands– nothing more can be added, while imperfectivity has to do with a process or activity that is seen as something (either actually or potentially) incomplete or ongoing, and which may or may not be interrupted or terminated at some point. Hirtle claims that “the simple form is perfective, the progressive imperfective” (1967, p. 27), but this would seem to be an oversimplification of what is in reality a rather more complex state of affairs. In the theory I am expounding here, I argue that while the progressive form is imperfective (as Hirtle and THE PROGRESSIVE FORM AND THE NON-PROGRESSIVE FORM… 93 most other linguists affirm), the non-progressive form may be perfective in certain cases and imperfective in others. In my theory, then, we concentrate in particular on the (actual or potential) outcome of a situation, and, as a consequence, we do not have to try to force certain uses of the non-progressive such as ‘eternal truths’ etc. into the perfective mould by stating that sentences such as ‘The sun sets in the west’, or ‘Paris lies on the Seine’ represent ‘complete’ situations (in the former case an endlessly iterative event, in the latter a permanent state). I consider permanent situations of this type in the non-progressive present to be imperfective: they are unbounded, but precisely because of their quality of permanence and unchangeability, we use the non-progressive form. Such situations continue indefinitely into the future without there being any idea (in the mind of the speaker or writer) of some future change in the situation. I shall now go on to examine each of the sentence pairs listed above in order to illustrate my theory of susceptibility to change in greater detail and put it to the test over a wide range of situations and contexts. 1) ‘Inzaghi passes the ball to Totti’/‘Inzaghi’s passing the ball to Totti’. The use of the non-progressive forms for sports commentaries –especially radio commentaries– is well-documented in the literature (e.g., Diver, 1963, p. 174; Hirtle, 1967, pp. 36-41; Leech, 1971, p. 15; Braroe, 1974, pp. 14-15; Barense, 1980, p. 29; Ljung, 1980, pp. 9, 13, 16, 26; Comrie, 1985, p. 37; Bertinetto, 1986, p. 326; 1997, pp. 65, 195; Fenn, 1987, p. 30; Declerck, 1991b, p. 176). In the sentence ‘Inzaghi passes the ball to Totti’, we have a description of the event the moment it takes place. Moreover, the event is seen in its entirety insofar as it begins and ends almost simultaneously with the moment of speech; the commentator already knows how the action finishes before describing it, or can foresee how it will end from repeated experience. Although the action (i.e. the passing of the ball from one player to another) is perceived by listeners as if it were happening at exactly the same time as it is being described, in actual fact there is, of course, often a gap (even if only of a fraction of a second) between the moment in which the action takes place and the moment of utterance. The fast-moving actions relating to the way the game unfolds are usually conveyed in the non-progressive form, but when the commentator wishes to refer to background situations or to some unexpected event occurring, then the progressive form is often used, e.g. ‘It’s rain- CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS 94 ing so hard and making the pitch so slippery that some of the players are having problems just standing up’, or ‘One of the fans is running across the pitch, and four policemen are chasing after him’. The use of the non-progressive form here (as in ‘One of the fans runs across the pitch, and four policemen chase after him’) would be inappropriate because the situation is of an unpredictable nature; in other words it does not come within the accepted rules governing the overall event of what constitutes a football match, while it would be perfectly acceptable to use the non-progressive form with the same verbs (‘run’ and ‘chase’) in contexts such as ‘Inzaghi runs with the ball down the left wing, lobs it deep into the penalty area, and the goalkeeper chases after it’. The progressive form is frequently used, then, with non-stative verbs in situations where the commentator is referring to the sports event in more general terms, for example when making a value judgement concerning a team’s or an individual’s performance rather than describing the action taking place on the pitch. A sentence such as ‘United’s defence is really struggling against Real Madrid this evening’ refers to a situation currently in progress, while a sentence such as ‘Inzaghi’s passing the ball to Totti a lot more in this game than he has in the last few matches’ refers to an iterative event that is still in progress; Inzaghi has so far passed the ball to Totti on several occasions during the present match (Hirtle, 1967, p. 38). In all the above cases where the progressive form is used, there is an idea of incompleteness about the situations, i.e. of the situations still being in progress, thus automatically ruling out the possibility of using the nonprogressive form in such contexts. 2) ‘I chop the onion and put it into the saucepan’/‘I’m chopping the onion and putting it into the saucepan’. With cookery demonstrations or other kinds of demonstrations or, for example, with a magician’s patter when describing the various phases of a trick (e.g. ‘I place a card under the cup like this’), there are certain fundamental analogies with the situation of the sports commentator reporting on an event that is in progress: in all these cases the speaker has to convey to an audience a description of a series of events (generally of very brief duration) each of which begins and ends at roughly the same time as it is being described. There is, however, one major difference: unlike the sports commentary, it is usually (though not necessarily) the speaker who is performing the action being THE PROGRESSIVE FORM AND THE NON-PROGRESSIVE FORM… 95 described and who knows what the sequence and outcome of his/her actions will be. Even if the actual event described terminates either just prior to or just after the moment of utterance, this in no way affects the decision to use the non-progressive form. The speaker is already fully aware of how the event will end (or how it has just ended) before it is described insofar as it has been planned in advance. The idea in the speaker’s mind is that of an action the end of which is already foreseen or has already occurred, and this necessitates the use of the non-progressive form. Hence the use of the non-progressive present in the description of the various phases involved in a pre-established routine such as the preparation of a dish or of a magician’s trick (Hirtle, 1967, p. 39). However, also in cookery demonstrations, and in similar contexts in which something is being demonstrated or illustrated, if the speaker is not describing the various phases that make up the actual recipe, the progressive form may be used, for example when giving an explanation for a certain action: ‘As you can see, I’m chopping the onion and putting it into the saucepan while we’re waiting for the water in the other pan to boil’. In this case the speaker’s perspective is different with respect to when the non-progressive form is used insofar as the action in the latter sentence does not actually form part of the planned sequence of instructions. The speaker is in practice providing added information with respect to the actual instructions, perhaps to fill in a gap while waiting to announce the next stage in the recipe. 3) ‘The Queen walks slowly up to the altar’/‘The Queen’s walking slowly up to the altar’. With televised (or radio) commentaries of ceremonies such as coronations, royal weddings, state funerals etc., we have a ritualised event where every part of the sequence has been learnt to perfection, both by the participants and, presumably, by the commentator, thus leaving nothing open to chance or to change. When the speaker utters the sentence ‘The Queen walks slowly up to the altar’, even if the Queen has not yet reached the altar when the words are uttered, there can be no doubt that she can only be heading towards the altar, and that her immediate aim is to reach the altar. Once again, the action is part of a pre-established sequence whose outcome is already known. It has been observed that the use of the simple form in ceremonial situations where the commentator foresees the end of the action described before it has occurred “adds a certain impression of dignity to the description CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS 102 On the other hand, the situation is rather different when we take into consideration a sentence such as ‘Let’s be going’ if there is no idea of the action taking place contemporaneously with some other situation. In this particular case the use of the progressive form with the second person imperative –?’Be going’– sounds distinctly odd, while ‘Let’s be going’ is perfectly acceptable. However, there would appear to be severe restrictions as to which verbs can be used in this way: ‘go’, ‘get’, ‘do’ and ‘make’ would seem to be amongst the few that can readily take the progressive form in such contexts, e.g. ‘Let’s be getting back home’, ‘Let’s be doing something about that, shall we?’ or ‘Let’s be making a move’. It is interesting to note that progressive imperatives which refer to an event taking place simultaneously with some other situation may refer to an event that is not restricted to any particular moment in the future. The progressive imperative in ‘Go on. Be washing the dishes when your Mum gets back. She’ll be really amazed’ could refer to the immediate future or to some other time hours, days or even weeks ahead. Similarly, ‘Be getting on with the exercise while I go and see the headmaster’ could refer to the immediate future or it could be an instruction given to a class concerning the following day’s lesson. On the contrary, it would appear that where there is no idea of an event occurring at the same time as some other situation, progressive imperatives in the first person plural can only refer to a present situation –i.e. a situation that is already ‘in progress’– requiring immediate action: ‘It’s late. Let’s be going’, or ‘Let’s be getting on with correcting these papers, otherwise we’ll be here all day’, etc. This restriction becomes apparent if we imagine a context which involves the following exchange: ‘There’s a free jazz concert on in town tomorrow’. ‘Great. Let’s go’. In this case *‘Great. Let’s be going’ would be quite inappropriate, precisely because the imperative refers to a situation that is located in a future time that is detached from the present moment. 11) ‘The Earth revolves around the sun’/‘The Earth is revolving around the sun’. All the non-progressive cases provided in the previous ten points are examples of perfectivity, i.e. the action or state described is seen in its entirety and completeness, from beginning to end, even if a present tense is used (and the present might seem –on a superficial reading, at least– to suggest that a situation is in some way still in progress). We shall now go on to examine a few cases in the non-progressive present in which the situation is in some way ‘endless’, and hence imperfective (as Declerck, 1991ª, pp. 283-284) has pointed out, there is no such thing as a ‘timeless’ sentence. Any sentence containing a finite verb must necessarily refer to some moment in time; so-called ‘timeless’ sentences generally include the present moment). There are many cases, such as scientific laws, permanent truths, etc., where the non-progressive present is used: ‘Ice floats on water’, ‘Living creatures adapt to their environment’. Here it is of no importance whether the verb used refers to an action (‘Light travels faster than sound’), a process (‘We all grow older’) or a state (‘A diamond lasts forever’). In practice, the permanence of the situation reduces all of them to states, and states by their very nature possess an unchanging quality that generally makes them impervious to the progressive form21. If we use a progressive form with what is normally regarded as a stative verb, e.g. ‘understand’ or ‘be’, we are no longer referring to a state but to a process or activity, e.g. ‘I’m understanding more about physics every single day’, or ‘You’re being silly’ (see sections 15 and 16). In a sentence such as ‘The Earth revolves around the sun’, the verb refers to an activity of movement, that of revolving, but because of its endless and unchanging quality it is perceived as a state. The situation is seen as a fact, as something permanently true and not susceptible to change. However, the progressive form is also possible here, even if no end to the situation is envisaged at all, precisely because the action is in progress, and hence constantly changing. It is in this sense that the situation (i.e. of the Earth’s revolving around the sun) is susceptible to change, that is, simply by being permanently in motion, by not being static. The position of the Earth vis-à-vis the sun is constantly changing; both are moving objects in space. Hence we have two ways of viewing the same phenomenon, each of which produces different results in terms of the choice of the progressive or non-progressive form. 12) ‘The sun sets in the west’/‘The sun’s setting in the west’. Here again we are dealing with a situation which can also be classified as a ‘permanent truth’ when the non-progressive form is used. 21 Bertinetto (1997, p. 77) has observed that there are a few so-called ‘postural’ verbs –such as ‘to hang’ or ‘to lie’– which, while belonging to the class of statives, are also compatible as statives with the progressive form, e.g. ‘The picture’s hanging in your bedroom’, ‘Her clothes were lying all over the floor’. THE PROGRESSIVE FORM AND THE NON-PROGRESSIVE FORM… 103 There is absolutely no idea of any future modification to the situation; it is a permanent fact, unchanging and endless, and hence imperfective. One major difference with respect to the sentence ‘The Earth revolves around the sun’ is that the sentence ‘The sun sets in the west’ represents an iterative event; it describes something that the sun does time after time, not a never-ending activity such as the Earth revolving round and round the sun (the latter is not permanently setting –it only sets once a day– while the Earth is permanently revolving around the sun. We are not interested here in how long it takes to complete a revolution). Some linguists have claimed that iterative sentences of this kind in the non-progressive form are perfective by arguing that we may take any instance of an iterative situation (e.g. the setting of the sun) as being a complete event in itself, but in my view the permanence and infiniteness of the situation make the imperfective interpretation more logical. The progressive form here –producing the (somewhat tautological) sentence ‘The sun’s setting in the west’– will normally refer to the event only as it is happening at the present moment22, precisely because we are dealing with an iterative event, unlike the sentence ‘The Earth’s revolving around the sun’, which indicates a constant activity and hence is true at any given moment in time. 13) ‘He always watches television’/‘He’s always watching television’. Bearing in mind the observations we have made so far, the distinction between two different ways of viewing habitual present actions, e.g. ‘She continually changes her mind’/‘She’s continually changing her mind’, should now be clear. In the former case we are dealing with a permanent feature which is reported in a matter-of-factual way. Here too, even though the verb may express an action or process, its endless iterativity (which thus makes it imperfective) transforms it into a state. In the latter case we are dealing with what may well be a relatively recent habit, and presumably with one that the speaker hopes will not last; a possible end to the habit is envisaged through the use of the progressive. And hence the emotive element (generally irritation or disapproval) that often accompanies this progressive use of the habitual present. Sometimes the emotion expressed may be a positive one, such as admiration (‘She’s forever helping old people’) or love (‘We’re always thinking about you and wondering how you’re getting on’). But 22 Declerck (1991b, p. 158) speaks of “reference to a single instance in progress”. CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS 104 THE PROGRESSIVE FORM AND THE NON-PROGRESSIVE FORM… 105 what is lacking in the progressive form here is precisely the idea of the permanence of the habit –which is not to be confused with the persistence of a (generally bad) habit– in spite of the use of adverbials such as ‘always’, ‘forever’, ‘continually’, or ‘constantly’. 14) ‘We live in London at the moment’/‘We’re living in London at the moment’. The difference in meaning between the non-progressive and the progressive forms in situations referring to states or activities that hold over the present period even if they do not necessarily hold at the moment of utterance (e.g. ‘Bill works for a computer company’ or ‘Bill’s working for a computer company’ is still true even if Bill is on holiday or sleeping at the moment of utterance) is sometimes so marginal that it has induced one or two grammarians to claim that they may in some cases be considered as the same thing. In the case of the sentence ‘We live in London at the moment’ (and similar sentences, as we have seen in the introduction), no matter how provisional the speaker’s situation may be, it is not the temporariness of the situation that the speaker wishes to convey when using the non-progressive form, while this aspect of impermanence is inherently implicit in the use of the progressive form. The choice in contexts of this sort, as we have already observed earlier, is one of emphasis between that of perceiving the situation as a state that holds in its entirety in the present or as a situation that is in progress in the current period. Even if we remove the deictic time reference and assert simply ‘We live in London’, the situation, though temporally unbounded, refers to the present and not to all time, even if there is no restriction concerning the continuity of the situation into the future. Of course, if we subsequently add some form of restriction as in ‘We live in London, but we’re thinking of moving to Scotland’, or if a deictic time adverbial is included in the sentence (‘We live in London at the moment’), the situation becomes temporally bounded, i.e. the state of living in London is viewed in its entirety only in relation to and not beyond the present moment. This is also true even in cases such as ‘We live in London now, and we shall stay here forever’. It is only in the second part of the sentence that the situation may be viewed as endless and hence imperfective; the first part remains temporally bounded (so-called ‘right-handed boundedness’). The progressive form renders the situation imperfective regardless of whether there is any temporal adverbial or not: ‘We’re living in London (at the moment)’. 15) ‘You’re silly’/‘You’re being silly’. An inordinate amount of intellectual energy has been consumed by a number of linguists, such as Ljung, over the difference between the non-progressive form and the progressive form of the verb ‘be’. The problem would seem to be a relatively straightforward one: in most of its uses the verb is to be considered statively, e.g. ‘That’s a pity’, ‘We’re here’, ‘They’re rich’, and hence only the non-progressive form can be used. As a stative verb, and as the most commonly used verb in the English language, ‘be’ covers a wide range of meanings, some of which are valid only in relation to the present moment and do not possess a permanent quality, e.g. ‘It’s eight o’clock’, ‘That dress is new’, ‘Sue’s pregnant’, ‘You’re drunk’, ‘The forks are over there’, while others will be seen as possessing a permanent quality, e.g. in gnomic sentences such as ‘Time is money’ or ‘Cows are herbivorous’23. And, of course, there are also situations which are in essence permanent, e.g. ‘Life’s wonderful’, unless the sentence contains a deictic time adverbial (‘Life’s wonderful at the moment’) or some other restrictive feature (‘Life’s wonderful, but I can feel it’s about to get worse’). But when ‘be’ means something like ‘act or behave in a certain way’, i.e. when it is used non-statively, it may take the progressive form because we are dealing with an activity or process that is temporary and cannot be viewed as a permanent feature of a given situation. Indeed, one of the underlying meanings of the progressive form of ‘be’ is precisely that of acting in a way that is abnormal with respect to the general situation: ‘She’s being very unreasonable about the divorce’, ‘That’s just being ridiculous’. Because such behaviour is considered as being in some way out of keeping with respect to the norm, it is therefore viewed as being of a temporary nature, and hence liable to come to an end sooner or later. Thus ‘be’ performs just like thousands of other polysemic verbs, i.e. it possesses several different meanings, some of which may be stative, others non-stative. 16) ‘I understand more about physics every single day’/‘I’m understanding more about physics every single day’. As is well-known, there are several stative verbs that only rarely take the progressive form, and several grammarians have provided lists 23 Bertinetto (1997, p. 87) refers to the former examples (e.g. ‘It’s eight o’clock’) as ‘contingent statives’ and to the latter examples (e.g. ‘Time is money’) as ‘permanent statives’. CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS 106 classifying such verbs in terms of their degree of imperviousness to the progressive form. Those which appear to shun the progressive form almost completely are a number of so-called ‘relational’ verbs such as ‘own’, ‘contain’, ‘belong’, ‘seem’. The ‘quality’ of owning or belonging or containing or seeming is perforce a static situation: either you own a car or you do not, either you belong to an association or you do not; you can always stop owning a car, or stop belonging to an association, but you cannot modify in any way the ‘quality’ of owning or belonging24. In most cases it is impossible for such verbs to be seen as processes “with internal temporal structure” (Comrie, 1976, p. 24) that can be broken down into a beginning, middle and end. Hirtle (1967, p. 26) makes an almost identical point with regard to sentences containing other fundamentally static situations, e.g. ‘The book is red’ or ‘I know the answer’: “the event expressed by the verb may last for a long time, but it will not change as long as it exists”25. On the rare occasions when ‘understand’ is used progressively, it behaves as a nonstative verb describing a developing process (Comrie, 1976, pp. 36-37). 17) ‘My back aches’/‘My back’s aching’. There is an almost imperceptible difference between the non-progressive and the progressive form when dealing with a particular group of verbs (used in most cases intransitively) which refer to bodily and sometimes psychological states or sensations (Leech, 1971, p. 22; Ljung, 1980, p. 14) such as ‘feel’, ‘hurt’, ‘itch’, ‘rub’, ‘sting’, ‘tingle’ etc.; indeed, here too, as in section 14, some grammarians consider the two forms as being identical. The difference would seem to be minimal in situations in which the physical or psychological state or sensation has already begun some time (pragmatically speaking, at least a few seconds) before the moment of utterance. Insofar as there is a difference, it would appear to lie in the fact that, with the non-progressive form, we are primarily concerned with conveying a state of being and, precise24 Declerck (1991b, p. 57) observes that “states involve no change and hence cannot be seen as developing or ongoing (…) all states are in a sense complete: a state exists as a whole during each and every instance of its duration”. 25 In his very lucidly argued essay (which draws heavily on the terminology and underlying framework of Hirtle), Defromont –referring to verbs such as ‘be’, ‘have’ and ‘know’– affirms “il ne faut pas de temps pour être, avoir ou savoir. Certes, l’existence, la possession et la connaissance peuvent être limitées dans le temps, mais chacun des instants de ce temps est identique aux autres, et il suffit de considérer l’un d’entre eux pour les considérer tous. De tel verbes sont statiques et les procès qu’ils évoquent ne sont susceptibles d’aucune évolution” (1973, p. 63). THE PROGRESSIVE FORM AND THE NON-PROGRESSIVE FORM… 107 CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS 108 ly because we view the situation as a state and not as a sensation currently being experienced, we use the non-progressive form, e.g. ‘My eyes sting’ or ‘My feet itch’. With the progressive form we are concerned with conveying our experiencing of a temporary sensation that is already in progress at the moment of utterance, e.g. ‘My eyes are stinging’, ‘My feet are itching’. In this case we are referring to an ongoing process which is probably seen as a temporary sensation that will end sooner or later. The temporary nature of the sensation is brought out even more clearly if we add ‘again’ to these sentences, the result being that we note a marked preference for the progressive ‘My back’s aching again’ or ‘My eyes are stinging again’ as opposed to the non-progressive ‘My back aches again’ or ‘My eyes sting again’ (as an indication of the recurrence of a certain condition the non-progressive form is possible, but the progressive form would generally seem to be a more natural option). Backache and stinging eyes come and go, they are iterative events that may occur sporadically during the current period, but they are not a permanent ‘fact of life’ for the speaker in question. Interestingly, if we refer to a physical or psychological state that suddenly comes into being immediately prior to the moment of utterance, e.g. ‘Mmm, that feels good’ or ‘Ooh, that stings’, or ‘That hurts’ in reply to an insensitive remark such as ‘Given up dieting, have you, Fatty?’, then we find that the progressive form is generally quite inappropriate. The reason for this would appear to be that in order to use the progressive form the situation must be perceived as having already come into existence for a certain amount of time (at least a few seconds) prior to the moment of utterance. 18) ‘I promise to pay you back’/‘I’m promising to pay you back’. We must also examine a group of verbs that have variously been termed as ‘asseveratives’ (Joos, 1964), ‘performatives’ or ‘illocutionary’ verbs. These are verbs such as ‘name’ (‘I name this ship “The Princess”), ‘say’ (‘I say you’re wrong’), ‘advise’ (I advise you to see a specialist’) etc., where the performance of the verb in question must be carried out in its entirety at the moment of utterance in order to be considered as valid. Here we are dealing with a perfective use of the nonprogressive form. The use of the progressive form with any of these verbs implies that the action has not been performed in its entirety. ‘I’m advising you to see a specialist’ suggests that the speaker still has something to add in terms of the advice being offered, perhaps because the hearer is not really convinced that the advice being given is suitable. Similarly, ‘I promise to pay you back’ represents an act –that of promising– which has been completed simply by being uttered (whether the promise is subsequently fulfilled is immaterial), while ‘I’m promising to pay you back’ implies that the act of promising is still in progress and is hence incomplete. 19) ‘I’ve finished the article’/‘I’ve been finishing the article’. The observation made in the previous point concerning ‘performatives’ points to an even wider issue that is often of crucial importance in determining whether the non-progressive or the progressive form is used. In short, as we have already had cause to note in several cases so far, we are often forced to examine what Lyons (1968, p. 706) has defined as the ‘aspectual character’ of the verb, a phenomenon more commonly referred to as either ‘Aktionsart’ or (less frequently) ‘actionality’26. Verbs have been classified by linguists in a number of ways; one of the most fruitful distinctions has been that of identifying what have variously been called ‘accomplishment’ and ‘achievement’ verbs (Vendler, 1967), ‘transitional event’ verbs (Leech, 1971), or ‘telic’ verbs (Garey, 1957) (from the Greek ‘telos’ meaning goal or objective), i.e. where the kind of situation expressed by the verb or verbal expression must reach a terminal point for it to be considered as having been accomplished. For example, if we take the telic verb ‘persuade’, the sentence ‘I’ve persuaded Bob to join our sports club’ implicates that Bob is now a member –or is about to become a member– of the sports club as a result of being successfully persuaded by the speaker, while ‘I’ve been persuading Bob to join our sports club’ implicates that the act of persuasion has not been fully completed. Sometimes the verb may be essentially ‘atelic’, e.g. ‘play’, as in ‘I play golf every day’ or ‘I’m playing golf at the moment’, but when it becomes part of a certain type of verbal expression, e.g. ‘play a round of golf’, it becomes ‘telic’, for while the sentence ‘I’m playing golf at the moment’ does not invalidate the subsequent claim that the speaker has indeed played golf, the sentence (for example spoken to someone on a mobile phone) ‘I’m playing a round of golf at the moment’ 26 Bertinetto (1997, pp. 27-60) is one of the many contemporary theorists who consider of the utmost importance the necessity of making a sharp distinction between ‘aspectuality’ and ‘actionality’. THE PROGRESSIVE FORM AND THE NON-PROGRESSIVE FORM… 109 CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS 110 cannot subsequently be taken as meaning with any certainty that the speaker has played a round of golf. He or she may have begun playing a round of golf, but may have been forced to give up before completing the entire round. Similarly, someone who was drowning but was subsequently saved clearly has not drowned, and so on. The implications of the distinction between telic and atelic expressions have been widely examined by linguists, often with reference to the perfect tenses, above all the present perfect. A sentence such as ‘I’ve finished the article’, containing the telic verb ‘finish’, leaves no room for doubt that (at least, according to the speaker) the article has been completed. This type of non-progressive present perfect can be defined (on the basis of Declerck’s classification, 1991a, p. 328) as ‘indefinite’ insofar as the moment of completion of the action lies wholly before the moment of utterance, and hence is quite clearly perfective. The sentence ‘I’ve been finishing the article’ is open to both a ‘continuative’ and an ‘indefinite’ reading. For example, if someone asks a person sitting in front of a computer screen ‘What have you been doing all day?’, a possible answer could be ‘I’ve been finishing the article. Just five more minutes and I’ll have finished it completely’. Here we have a continuative reading: the speaker is still in the process of putting the final touches to the article at the time the utterance is made. Alternatively, as an answer to the observation made during an evening meal ‘You look dreadful. What have you been doing all day?’, the reply ‘I’ve been finishing the article’ is self-evidently of the indefinite variety since the speaker is not actually involved in the activity of finishing the article at the moment of utterance. This indefinite type of progressive present perfect is sometimes called the ‘explanatory resultative’ type (Declerck, 1991a, p. 341, note 62) in that it tends to be used to explain the reason for a given situation, e.g. ‘Your sleeves are all wet. Have you been watering the plants again?’ or ‘Sorry I’m late. I’ve been trying to find somewhere to park’. Although the actions referred to in such sentences have already come to an end before the moment of utterance, their resultative implications are very strongly in the foreground –the situation described in the indefinite present perfect progressive is, as it were, prolonged in its results (Defromont, 1973, pp. 66-67)27. Such uses of the indefinite present per27 Referring to examples of the indefinite form of the present perfect progressive (e.g. ‘You haven’t been listening’ or ‘Who’s been eating my porridge?’), Defromont observes: “l’action désignée par has been -ing a, dans ces exemples, des résultats fect in the progressive form would seem to invalidate the claim made by some linguists that only the non-progressive form may be considered as having ‘resultative’ implications. 20) ‘She wrote to him’/‘She was writing to him’. Little can be usefully added here that has not already been observed in hundreds of grammar books concerning the basic difference between the non-progressive and the progressive form of the past. Non-progressive uses of the past in English tend to be predominantly perfective28 insofar as the majority of situations are perceived as already having been completed regardless of whether they are punctual or durative (‘You blinked just now’, ‘It took billions of years of evolution to create someone like you’); the situation described usually has no connection with the present. Even sentences such as ‘And they all lived happily ever after’, or ‘Their love was eternal’ are temporally bounded, the situation having presumably terminated some time before the present moment. However, there may occasionally be exceptions to this rule, as Declerck has pointed out (1991a, p. 227), in cases such as ‘Where’s John?’ ‘He was in the kitchen five minutes ago, so I suppose he’s still there’, where the situation of John being in the kitchen is not represented as ‘completed’ by the past tense. In the sentence ‘She wrote to him’, the action of writing is viewed as being complete, while the progressive form of the past, on the other hand, as is well known, indicates an action or process that was in progress but was in some way (either actually or potentially) incomplete, e.g. ‘She was writing to him when she suddenly realised she didn’t know his new address’. directs et concrets qui sont présents à l’esprit du locateur au moment où il parle” (1973, p. 68). 28 This statement requires some qualification as there are a number of cases in which the non-progressive past tense may refer to an imperfective situation. Just to take one example, in certain ‘narrative’ contexts, a sentence where all the verbs are in the non-progressive form of the past tense, e.g. ‘As the farmer walked down the lane, the sun shone and the cows lazily munched grass’ is, semantically and pragmatically speaking, almost indistinguishable from the sentence in which all three verbs are in the past progressive: ‘As the farmer was walking down the lane, the sun was shining and the cows were lazily munching grass’. (Obviously, the latter sentence would strike most native-speakers as the more natural of the two). Assuming one ignores the possibility of giving an ingressive interpretation to ‘the sun shone’ in the former example (which would render the situation aspectually open to more than one interpretation), in both sentences the verbal situations can be seen as being in some way incomplete and hence may constitute cases of imperfectivity. THE PROGRESSIVE FORM AND THE NON-PROGRESSIVE FORM… 111