3. The connection of the aspect interpretation with other lexicological issues: terminative and durative verbs

The interpretation of aspect is closely connected with lexicology. This connection may be illustrated by the following examples:

E.g. A young man sat in the corner of the room. ÷ A young man was sitting in the corner of the room.

The change of the verb form does not affect the basic meaning of the sentence. The same situation may be described in both ways, the only difference between them being that of stylistic colouring: the variant with the common aspect form is more matter-of-fact, whereas the one with the continuous aspect form is more descriptive.

On the other hand we can analyze another set of sentences:

E.g. He brought her some flowers.

If we alter the verb-form, this will undoubtedly affect the meaning. With the aspect form brought the sentence means that the flowers actually reached her, whereas the continuous aspect forms would mean that he had the flowers with him but something prevented him from giving them to her.

The natural question arises why there is some change in meaning in the second case while there is none in the first one? The answer lies in the lexical character of the corresponding verbs. The verb to sit differs from the verb to bring because the former denotes an action, which can go on indefinitely without necessarily reaching the final point. Unlike it, the verb to bring implies some limit; it denotes an action, which must come to an end owing to its very nature. Verbs like to sit are called durative and verbs like to bring are called terminative. With durative verbs the difference between the Common and the Continuous aspects may be neutralized whereas with terminative verbs it cannot.

The theory of durative and terminative verbs with reference to English was put forward by Prof. Vorontsova⁵⁸ and it was adopted with some modifications by some other authors. Prof. I.P. Ivanova considers durativeness and terminativeness to be grammatical categories of the verb⁵⁹. The opposition of terminative and non-terminative verbs can be tracked down in a great number of English grammar books.

Nevertheless it should be noted that the verb may be terminative in one meaning and durative in another meaning. Thus, the verb to sit would be terminative in its secondary meaning “to sit down”.

In A University Grammar of English by R. Quirk et al the verbs are divided into stative and dynamic. Dynamic verbs indicate “action, activity, and temporary or changing conditions” [Quirk et al 1983: 28]. But since one of the greatest values of language lies in its flexibility, these primary distinctions can be violated.

G. Leech and J. Svartvik in their Communicative Grammar of English assert that verbs may relate either to an event (i.e. a happening thought of as a single occurrence, with a definite beginning and end: be, live, stay, know, etc.), or to a state (i.e. a state of affairs which continues over a period, and need not have a well-defined beginning and end: get, come, leave, hit, etc.). Nevertheless this distinction is more conceptual than real. The same verb can change from one category to another, and the distinction is not always clear: Did you remember his name? could refer either to a state or to an event. That’s why the linguists warn that it is more advisable we speak about “state uses of verbs” and “event uses of verbs”. Nevertheless, they admit that it is more convenient to keep to the simpler terms “state verb” and “event verb” [Leech, Svartvik 1983: 46]. Furthermore the authors of the Communicative Grammar enlarge upon the verbs denoting activities (walk, read, drink, write, work, etc.) or progress (change, grow, widen, improve, etc.) and verbs denoting momentary events (knock, jump, nod, kick, etc.), which typically take the progressive aspect. State verbs (verbs of perceiving, referring to a state of mind or feeling or referring to a relationship: feel, hear, see, smell, taste; believe, adore, desire, forget, hate, hope; be, belong to, concern, consist of, contain, cost, etc.) often cannot be used with the progressive at all, because the notion of “something in progress” cannot be easily applied to them. Nevertheless there are special circumstances when these verbs are used with the progressive. Thus the state verb has changed into an activity verb [Leech, Svartvik 1983: 52-53].