Skip to main content
Social Sci LibreTexts

20.2: Situation type (Aktionsart)

  • Page ID
    138744
  • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    Before we think about the kinds of meanings that tense and aspect markers can express, we need to think first about the kinds of situations that speakers may want to describe. We can divide all situations into two basic classes, states vs. events. (This is why we speak of “situation type” rather than “event type”; we need a term that includes states as well as events.1) Informally we might define events as situations in which something “happens”, and states as situations in which nothing happens.

    Roughly speaking, if you take a video of a state it will look like a snapshot, because nothing changes; but if you take a video of an event, it will not look like a snapshot, because something will change. In more precise terms we might define a state as a situation which is homogeneous over time: it is construed as being the same at every instant within the time span being described. Examples of sentences which describe stative situations include: this tea is cold; my puppy is playful; George is my brother. Of course, to say that a state is a situation in which nothing changes does not mean that these situations will never change. Tea can be re-heated, puppies grow up, etc. It simply means that such changes are not part of the situation currently being described.

    Conversely, we can define an event as a situation which is not homogeneous over time, i.e., a situation which involves some kind of change. In more technical terminology, events are said to be dynamic, or internally complex. Examples of sentences which describe eventive situations include: my tea got cold; my puppy is playing; George hit my brother; Susan will write a letter.

    In classifying situations into various types, we are interested in those distinctions which are linguistically relevant, so it is important to have linguistic evidence to support the distinctions that we make.2 A number of tests have been identified which distinguish states from events. For example, only sentences which describe eventive situations can be used appropriately to answer the question What happened?3 Applying this test leads us to conclude that sentences (3a–d) describe eventive situations while sentences (3e–h) describe stative situations.

    (3)    What happened was that…

                a. Mary kissed the bishop.

                b. the sun set.

                c. Peter sang Cantonese folk songs.

                d. the grapes rotted on the vine.

                e. * Sally was Irish.

                f. * the grapes were rotten.

                g. * William had three older brothers.

                h. * George loved sauerkraut.

    A second test is that only eventive situations can be naturally described using the progressive (be V-ing) form of the verb, although with some states the progressive can be used to coerce a marked interpretation. This test indicates that sentences (4a–c) describe eventive situations while sentences (4d–g) describe stative situations. Sentences (4h-i) involve situations which, based on other evidence, we would classify as stative. Here the progressive is acceptable only with a special, coerced interpretation: (4h) is interpreted to mean that this situation is temporary and not likely to last long, while (4i) is interpreted to mean that Arthur is behaving in a certain way (an eventive interpretation). In some contexts, (4e) might be acceptable with a coerced interpretation like that of (4i).

    (4)    a. Mary is kissing the bishop.

            b. The sun is setting.

            c. Peter is singing Cantonese folk songs.

            d. * This room is being too warm.

            e. * Sally is being Irish.

    f. * William is having a headache.

    g. * George is loving sauerkraut.

    h. George is loving all the attention he is getting this week.

    i. Arthur is being himself.

    A third test is that in English, eventive situations described in the simple present tense take on a habitual interpretation, whereas no such interpretation arises with states in the simple present tense. For example, (5c) means that Peter is in the habit of singing Cantonese folk songs; he does it on a regular basis. In contrast, (5e) does not mean that William gets headaches frequently or on a regular basis; it is simply a statement about the present time (=time of speaking). This test indicates that sentences (5a–c) describe eventive situations while sentences (5d–e) describe stative situations.

    (5)    a. Mary kisses the bishop (every Saturday).

            b. The sun sets in the west.

            c. Peter sings Cantonese folk songs.

            d. This room is too warm.

            e. William has a headache.

    Some authors have cited certain tests as evidence for distinguishing state vs. event, which in fact are tests for agentive/volitional vs. non-agentive/non-volitional situations. For example, only agentive/volitional situations can normally be expressed in the imperative; be modified by agent-oriented adverbials (e.g. deliberately); or appear as complements of Control predicates (try, persuade, forbid, etc.). It turns out that most states are non-agentive, but not all non-agentive predicates are states (e.g. die, melt, fall, bleed, etc.). Moreover, some stative predicates can occur in imperatives or control complements (Be careful! He is trying to be good. I persuaded her to be less formal.), indicating that these states are at least potentially volitional. It is important to use the right tests for the right question.

    A second important distinction is between telic vs. atelic events. A telic event is one that has a natural endpoint. Examples include dying, arriving, eating a sandwich, crossing a river, and building a house. In each case, it is easy to know when the event is over: the patient is dead, the sandwich is gone, the house is built, etc.

    uilt, etc. Many telic events (e.g. build, destroy, die, etc.) involve some kind of change of state in a particular argument, generally the patient or theme. This argument “measures out” the event, in the sense that once the result state is achieved, the event is over.4 Some telic events are measured out by an argument that does not undergo any change of state, e.g. read a novel: when the novel is half read, the event is half over, but the novel does not necessarily change in any way. Other telic events are measured out or delimited by something which is not normally expressed as an argument at all, e.g. run five miles, fly to Paris, drive from Calgary to Vancouver, etc. Motion events like these are measured out by the path which is traversed; the progress of the theme along the path reflects the progress of the event. As Dowty (1991) points out, with many such predicates the path can optionally be expressed as a syntactic argument: swim the English channel, ford the river, hike the Annapurna Circuit, drive the Trans-Amazonian Highway, etc.

    Atelic events are those which do not have a natural endpoint. Examples include singing, walking, bleeding, shivering, looking at a picture, carrying a suitcase, etc. There is no natural part of these events which constitutes their end point. They can continue indefinitely, until the actor decides to stop or something else intervenes to end the event. Atelic events do not involve a specified change of state, and no argument “measures them out”.

    Dowty (1979) identifies several tests which distinguish telic vs. atelic events. The two most widely used are illustrated in (6–7). A description of an atelic event can naturally be modified by time phrases expressing duration, as in (6); this is unnatural with telic events. In contrast, a description of a telic event can naturally be modified by time phrases expressing a temporal boundary, as in (7); this is unnatural with atelic events.

    (6)    For ten minutes Peter…

                a. sang in Cantonese.

                b. chased his pet iguana.

                c. stared at the man sitting next to him.

                d. * broke three teeth.

                e. * recognized the man sitting next to him.

                f. * found his pet iguana.

    (7)    In ten minutes Peter…

                a. ⁇ sang in Cantonese. (could only mean, ‘In ten minutes Peter began to sing…’)

                b. * chased his pet iguana.

                c. * stared at the man sitting next to him.

                d. broke three teeth.

                e. recognized the man sitting next to him.

                f. found his pet iguana.

    Situation Aspect is sometimes referred to as “lexical aspect”, because certain verbs tend to be associated with particular situation types. For example, die and break are inherently telic, whereas chase and stare are fundamentally atelic. However, in many sentences the whole VP (and sometimes the whole clause) helps to determine the situation type which is being described. For example, with many transitive verbs the telicity of the event depends on whether or not the object NP is quantified or specified in some way: eat ice cream is atelic, but eat a pint of ice cream is telic; sing folk songs is atelic, but sing “The Skye boat song” is telic. Similarly, as noted above, the telicity of motion events may depend on whether or not the path is delimited in some way: walk is atelic, but walk to the beach is telic.

    Based on the two distinctions we have discussed thus far, we can make the following classification of situation types:

    (8)    

    A third distinction which will be important is that between durative vs. punctiliar (=instantaneous) situations. Durative situations are those which extend over a time interval (singing, dancing, reading poetry, climbing a mountain), while punctiliar situations are those which are construed as happening in an instant (recognizing someone, reaching the finish line, snapping your fingers, a window breaking). One test that can help in making this distinction is that punctiliar situations described in the progressive (He is tapping on the door/blinking his eyes/etc.) normally require an iterative interpretation (something that happens repeatedly, over and over). This is not the case with durative situations (He is reading your poem/climbing the mountain/etc.).

    Five major situation types are commonly recognized, and these can be distinguished using the three features discussed above as shown in Table 20.2.5 Activities are atelic events such as dance, sing, carry a sword, hold a sign, etc. Achievements are telic events (normally involving a change of state) which are construed as being instantaneous: break, die, recognize, arrive, find, etc. Accomplishments are durative telic events, meaning that they require some period of time in order to reach their end-point. Accomplishments often involve a process of some kind which results in a change of state. Examples include eat a pint of ice cream, build a house, run to the beach, clear a table, etc. Semelfactives are instantaneous events which do not involve any change of state: blink, wink, tap, snap, clap, click, etc. Although they are punctiliar, they are considered to be atelic because they do not involve a change of state and nothing measures them out.

    Table 20.1: Aktionsart (situation types) (C. Smith 1997: 3)

    For some purposes it is helpful to make a further distinction between two kinds of states: stage-level (temporary) vs. individual-level (permanent).6 We will refer to these situation types often in our discussion of the meanings of tense and aspect markers. But first we begin that discussion by identifying three “cardinal points” for time reference: the time of speaking, the time of situation, and “topic time”.


    1 Some authors use the terms eventuality or actionality instead of situation.

    2 It turns out that situation type plays an important role in syntax as well as semantics.

    3 Jackendoff (1976: 100, 1983: 179).

    4 The term “measures out” comes from Tenny (1987). Dowty (1991) uses the term “incremental theme” for arguments that “measure out” the event in gradual/incremental stages, so that the state of the incremental theme directly reflects the progress of the event.

    5 The first four of these types are well known from the work of Dowty (1979) and Vendler (1957). The Semelfactive class was added by C. Smith (1997), based on Comrie (1976: 42).

    6 Carlson (1977), Kratzer (1995).


    This page titled 20.2: Situation type (Aktionsart) is shared under a CC BY 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Paul Kroeger (Language Library Press) via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform; a detailed edit history is available upon request.

    • Was this article helpful?