 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
45
into actional and statal sets as were established at the primary stage of classification. For instance, the "purely
processual" verb thaw referring to an inactive substance should be defined, more precisely, as "processual-
statal", whereas the "processual" verb consider relating to an active doer should be looked upon, more
precisely, as "processual-actional". This can be shown by transformational tests:
The snow is thawing. > The snow is in the state of thawing.
The designer is considering another possibility. > The action of the designer is that he is considering
another possibility.
Thus, the primary binary division of the verbs upon the basis of the subject-process relation is sustained.
Similar criteria apply to some more specific subsets of verbs permitting the binary actional-statal
distribution. Among these of a special significance are the verbal sets of mental processes and sensual
processes. Within the first of them we recognize the correlation between the verbs of mental perception and
mental activity. E.g.: know - think; understand - construe; notice - note; admire - assess; forget - reject; etc.
Within the second set we recognize the correlation between the verbs of physical perception as such and
physical perceptional activity. E.g.: see - look; hear - listen; feel (inactive) - feel (active) - touch; taste (inactive)
- taste (active); smell (inactive) - smell (active); etc.
The initial member of each correlation pair given above presents a case of a statal verb, while the
succeeding member, respectively, of an actional verb. Cf. the corresponding transformational tests:
The explorers knew only one answer to the dilemma. > The mental state of the explorers was such that they
knew only one answer to the dilemma.
I am thinking about the future of the village. > My mental activity consists in thinking about the future of
the village. Etc.
The grammatical relevance of the classification in question, apart from its reflecting the syntactically
generalized relation of the subject of the verb to the process denoted by it, is disclosed in the difference between
the two subclasses in their aspectual behaviour. While the actional verbs take the form of the continuous aspect
quite freely, i.e. according to the general rules of its use, the statal verbs, in the same contextual conditions, are
mainly used in the indefinite form. The continuous with statal verbs, which can be characterized as a more or
less occasional occurrence, will normally express some sort of intensity or emphasis (see further).
§ 9. Aspective verbal semantics exposes the inner character of the process denoted by the verb. It represents
the process as dura-tive (continual), iterative (repeated), terminate (concluded), intermi-nate (not concluded),
instantaneous (momentary), ingressive (starting), overcompleted (developed to the extent of superfluity),
undercom-pleted (not developed to its full extent), and the like.
Some of these aspectual meanings are inherent in the basic semantics of certain subsets of English verbs.
Compare, for instance, verbs of ingression (begin, start, resume, set out, get down), verbs of instantaneity
(burst, click, knock, bang, jump, drop), verbs of termination (terminate, finish, end, conclude, close, solve,
resolve, sum up, stop), verbs of duration (continue, prolong, last, linger, live, exist). The aspectual meanings of
overcompletion, undercomple-tion, repetition, and the like can be rendered by means of lexical derivation, in
particular, prefixation (oversimplify, outdo, underestimate, reconsider). Such aspectual meanings as ingression,
duration, termination, and iteration are regularly expressed by aspective verbal collocations, in particular, by
combinations of aspective predicators with verbids (begin, start, continue, finish, used to, would, etc., plus the
corresponding verbid component).
In terms of the most general subclass division related to the grammatical structure of language, two
aspective subclasses of verbs should be recognized in English. These will comprise numerous minor aspective
groups of the types shown above as their microcompo-nent sets.
The basis of this division is constituted by the relation of the verbal semantics to the idea of a processual
limit, i.e., some border point beyond which the process expressed by the verb or implied in its semantics is
discontinued or simply does not exist. For instance, the verb arrive expresses an action which evidently can
only develop up to the point of arriving; on reaching this limit, the action ceases. The verb start denotes a
transition from some preliminary state to some kind of subsequent activity, thereby implying a border point
between the two. As different from these cases, the verb move expresses a process that in itself is alien to any
idea of a limit, either terminal or initial.
The verbs of the first order, presenting a process as potentially limited, can be called "limitive". In the
published courses of English grammar where they are mentioned, these verbs are called "tenninative",* but the
latter term seems inadequate. As a matter of fact, the word suggests the idea of a completed action, i.e. of a
limit attained, not only the implication of a potential limit existing as such. To the subclass of limitive belong