Abstract
In this paper the issue of the relationship between aktionsart and aspect with the point of departure in Swedish, (compared to English and Polish) is being discussed. It is argued that the definition of bounded aktionsart in Swedish does not allow for maintaining the distinction between aktionsart and aspect. The division bounded/unbounded types of action overlaps to a great degree, but not systematically, with the distinction perfective/imperfective aspect in the equivalent Polish sentences (aspectual values being overtly marked). Thus, in some cases, aspectual and actional meanings involve the same defining features, in other cases the defining features are different. It is suggested that maintaining the distinction between having and reaching the natural final point (reaching entails having, but having does not necessarily entail reaching) may, in many cases, make it possible to keep those two categories apart.References
Aijmer, Kristofer. 2000. Svenska passivere aspektuella funktioner i kontrast mot ryska. In: Engdahl, Elisabet and Noreen, Kerstin (eds). An använda SAG. Meddelanden från Institutionen för svenska språket. Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet. pp. 15-36.
Bache, Carl. 1997. The Study of Aspect, Tense and Action. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften.
Bennet, Michael. 1981. Of tense and aspect: one analysis. In: Tedeschi, Philip J. and Zaenen, Annie (eds). Tense and Aspect. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 14. New York: Academic Press, pp. 13-29.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dahl, Osten. 1981. On the Definition of the Telic-Atelic (Bounded-Unbounded) Distinction. In: Tedeschi, Philip J. and Zaenen, Annie (eds). Tense and Aspect. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 14. New York: Academic Press, pp. 79-90.
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. Tense in English, its Structure and Use in Discourse. London and New York: Routledge.
Dowty, David R. 1977. Toward a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English imperfective progressive. Linguistics and Philosophy 1, pp. 45-77.
Grzegorczykowa, Renata. 1997. Nowe spojrzenie na kategorię aspektu w perspektywie semantyki kognitywnej. In: Grzegorczykowa, Renata and Zaron, Zofia (eds). Semantyczna struktura słownictwa i wypowiedzi. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, pp. 25-36.
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Laskowski, Roman. 1998. Aspekt. In: Grzegorczykowa, Renata, Laskowski, Roman and Wróbel, Henryk (eds). Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego. Morfologia. (Second edition). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, pp. 157-178.
Mourelatos, Alexander P. D. 1981. Events, processes and states. In: Tedeschi, Philip J. and Zaenen, Annie (eds). Tense and Aspect. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 14. New York: Academic Press pp 191-212.
Noreen, Kerstin. 2000. Partikelförbindelser och möjliga förbindelser. In: Engdahl, Elisabet and Noreen, Kerstin (eds). Att använda SAG. Meddelanden frän Institutinen för svenska spräket. Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet, pp. 383-393.
Piemikarski, Cezar. 1969. Typy opozycji aspektowych czasownika polskiego na tle słowiańskim. Wrocław: Ossolineum.
Smith, Carlota S. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Klüver Academic Publishers.
Smith, Carlota S. 1997. The Parameter of Aspect. (Second edition). Dordrecht: Kluver Academic Publishers.
Teleman, Ulf, Hellberg, Staffan and Andersson, Erik. 1999. Svenska Akademiens grammatik. Stockholm: Norstedts.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. New York: Ithaca.