A.

Gianto/TAM 1

TENSE, ASPECT, MODALITY AND EVIDENTIALITY

SOME BASIC NOTIONS

TENSE. TENSE: (Italian “TEMPO”) is the grammatical expression of the distance in time between
the moment of utterance and the situation (a more convenient term that includes action,
event, state) being spoken about. Generally these are the theoretical possibilities:
— PAST TENSE: the situation takes place prior to the moment of utterance: Chris came here
(yesterday). [Hb. qatal of non-stative verbs; and in its appropriate context wayiqqtol]
— PRESENT TENSE the situation takes place exactly at the moment of utterance: People keep
coming. [Hb. yiqtol, the ptc qōtēl, and often qatal of stative verbs.]
— FUTURE TENSE the situation comes after the moment of utterance: We will send the book
tomorrow. [Hb. yiqtol, and in its appropriate context, wǝqataltí.]
— GENERIC TENSE (incl. “habitual” tense): the distance in time with the moment of
utterance is irrelevant as in The sun rises in the morning. The generic tense is in many
languages identical with the present tense. But in a number of languages, for instance
Dyirbal (Northeast Queensland, Australia), there is a distinct generic tense. [Hb. yiqtol;
ptc. qōtēl, and generally qatal of stative verbs.]
The Hb. forms indicated between brackets can express the corresponding notions of “tense”.
But it should be kept in mind that the Hb. forms also express ASPECT and MODALITY as will be
explained below. That is the reason why Hb. forms are not as distinct as the tenses in a
language like English or Italian in indicating time reference.

These four tenses above are ABSOLUTE TENSES because the temporal reference does not depend
on some other situation. In many languages a situation that is in relation with another
situation in the past or in the future is expressed in RELATIVE TENSES, for instance the
pluperfect in English (cf. Latin plusquamperfectum) Alex had left when I arrived. [Hb. has X +
qatal, e.g. Gen 1:2 wǝhāʾāreṣ (=X) hāyǝtâ (=qatal) tôhû wābôhû.]. Another example of relative
tense is the English future perfect (Latin futurum exactum): You will have finished your training
in two years’ time. [Hb. yiqtol or wǝqataltí under certain contexts.]

The Hebrew verbal form wayyiqtol is a special kind of RELATIVE TENSES. It is used in narrative
texts to describe a situation that is closely connected with another situation in a narrative
sequence. The whole sequence builds the main story-line (or, metaphorically, the backbone)
of a narrative text.

Unlike English or Italian, the basic principle to express the notion of tense in Semitic (thus in
Classical Hebrew too) is “anteriority”, that is, distance into the past between the moment of
utterance and the situation being spoken about. Thus in Hebrew both qatal and wayyiqtol
express a situation prior to the moment of utterance if the lexical base of the verb indicates
action or process (also call action/fientic/dynamic verbs) and are usually equivalent to the
English past tense. (As explained above, note that while wayyiqtol is a RELATIVE TENSE, qatal is
not). With verbs whose lexical base refers to a state (as in stative verbs ‘to know’, ‘to sleep’,
‘to hear’ and several other experiential verbs), the translation value of qatal is closer to the
English present tense.

Historically the form wayyiqtol goes back to Northwest Semitic yaqtul-ZERO whose function is
to express a past situation in some sequence with other situations in the past. In Hebrew this
sequence is not indicated by qatal. The form yiqtol, which is closely associated with MODALITY,
is used in Hebrew to express the present, future and generic tense.

In narrative texts, the form wǝqatal (often referred to as wǝqataltí) indicates a situation
dependent (incl. “backgrounded” information) to a series of main situations (“backbone” of
the narration) in the past which is expressed in wayyiqtol (see for example Job 1:4-5). These
“converted tenses” (wayyiqtol e wǝqatal) are typical Hebrew innovation. Note that wǝqatal, in
contrast to wayyiqtol, does not in itself indicate time reference; its main function is to express
MODALITY and to some extent, ASPECT, see below. Thus properly speaking, the common notion
that wǝqatal “converts” qatal into a future tense is incorrect.
A.Gianto/TAM 2

ASPECT. Aspect is the grammatical expression of the temporal dimension within the situation
itself, independent of its relation to the moment of utterance. The main categories are based
on whether the process is already done (PERFECTIVE) or is still going on (IMPERFECTIVE); the
former is also called NON-PROGRESSIVE, the latter PROGRESSIVE. Note also the category called
PERFECT below.
— PERFECTIVE (the action is done: Alex read the book) vs. IMPERFECTIVE (the action is still
in the process: Alex is/was reading the book). A special type of IMPERFECTIVE is the
“CONATIVE” apect: it describes a situation that is about to happen (The net is/was
breaking apart. [At that point it is/was not broken yet]). Belonging here is an
attempted situation (She was/is presenting her letter of resignation [But the context
makes clear that she never did it].)
— The PERFECTIVE also covers notions like INGRESSIVE (indicating the onset of a situation,
thus the event already starts, whether it lasts or nor not is not relevant: The semester
started yesterday) and RESULTATIVE (deriving from some other situation like a heavy
downpour: Chris was soaking wet); here Chris’s being drenched is already a fact. In
Hebrew, qatal and wayyiqtol represent both the PERFECTIVE ASPECT and the PAST TENSE,
while yiqtol (and to some extent the participle qōtēl) stands for the IMPERFECTIVE ASPECT
and the FUTURE TENSE (see also MODALITY below).
— The PERFECT (often treated as tense/aspect, but in fact it is closer to aspect) expresses a
situation that is already done but it still has some relevance that is still felt, as in the
case of a very recent happening (I have seen it!); sometimes it expresses a “re-enacted”
experience (I have just missed the train – what a nuisance!). In Hebrew the PERFECT is
expressed mostly by putting the subject before a qatal (thus the term “x-qatal”; x being
the lexical subject placed before the verb); see for example Gen 1:2 wǝhāʾāreṣ hāyǝtâ
tôhû wābôhû. This syntagm sometimes has the translation value of the English
pluperfect since it reproduces both the PAST TENSE (qatal) and the PERFECT ASPECT (i.e.,
expressed by the word order x-qatal).
— INDEFINITE ASPECt vs. the other aspects mentioned above, especially IMPERFECTIVE.

The ASPECTS mentioned thus far are GRAMMATICAL ASPECTS. These are to be distinguished from
the LEXICAL ASPECTS, i.e., the kind of actions (“Aktionsart”) as expressed by the lexical
meaning of the word. (Note that a number of traditional grammars/manuals of Hebre blur the
distinction between grammatical and lexical aspects, but it is important to keep them
distinct). The most important categories of LEXICAL ASPECTS are:
— TELIC (to hit) vs. ATELIC (to walk): the distinction specifies the action that progresses
toward an end (i.e., the thing or person hit) or without such an end (as in walking or
flying);
— STATIVE (to sleep) vs. DYNAMIC (verbs of actions like to go to bed, to lie down).
— PUNCTUAL (to cough) vs. DURATIVE (to linger).
— DURATIVE includes notions like ITERATIVE (the situation happens again and again,
repeatedly), FREQUENTATIVE (the situation occurs frequently, thus not only repeatedly),
RECIPROCAL (the situation involves at least two parties). Note that iteration, frequently
occuring situations, or reciprocal actions may also be expressed grammatically. These
are borderline cases between lexical and grammatical aspects.

There are derivational morphemes that change the sense of the lexical aspect. Thus the
factitive in English, for example, can be formed by using {-ise/-ize}; in Semitic, the factitive
usually expressed by the D-stem (“Piel”), with its characteristic doubling of the middle
radical.

Aspectual contrasts, apart from PERFECTIVE vs. IMPERFECTIVE, are often morphologically
unmarked. Other methods are used to indicate one aspectual sense rather than the other, for
example, by adding adverbial complements. Thus he walked is atelic, but the addition of to the
door makes the whole statement telic. Also the durative can be made more precise in a
periphrastic construction like she is/was singing. In Hebrew there are expressions that indicate
the ingressive, for example wayyāqom, literally, ‘he stood up’, if used with another verb in
wayyiqtol expresses the ingressive of this verb. In some cases wayyabōʾ, literally ‘and he came’
A.Gianto/TAM 3

used with another verb in wayyiqtol can indicate the resultative (e.g. Gen 13:18; 23:2). The
N-stem of stative verbs can indicate the ingressive.

MODALITY. MODALITY is the expression of the speaker’s attitude:

— concerning the truth of the proposition; this is called EPISTEMIC MODALITY, also called
pROPOSITION MODALITY Joan is not here yet, but she may arrive at any moment;
— concerning the realizability of the proposition by an agent; hence DEONTIC MODALITy,
also known as EVENT MODALITY: You have to book your flight early in order to get a seat.

Those are the two main semantic categories of MODALITY, each having different subtypes (see
manuals, esp. Palmer’s or my “Mood and Modality in Classical Hebrew”). MODALITY can be
indicated lexically or grammatically, or in a combination of both. The lexical expressions are
usually adverbs like possibly, maybe, likely, probably, supposedly, etc. The grammatical
expressions make use of modal verbs like can, may, must, shall, will, etc. In a number of
languages modality is expressed in the morphosyntax of the verbal predicate, hence the
notion of “MOODS”, namely AFFIRMATIVE, INTERROGATIVE, IMPERATIVE. Note that the
ILLOCUTIONARY FORCE of an affirmation can generate MODALITY, for example This room is a bit
dark, isn't it? can express a request to switch on the light; questions like Have we finished?
actually means an invitation to go.

TENSE, ASPECT, and MODALITY can intersect with one another. In other words, forms that
primarily indicate TENSE can have a MODAL SENSE and can also function to indicate ASPECT and
vice versa:
— A situation that takes place in the moment of utterance is by definition is not fully
complete and thus there is a relationship between the PRESENT TENSE and the
IMPERFECTIVE ASPECT. Hence the form yiqtol can indicate the present and the future
(Properly speaking, the future is a kind of modality).
— The PAST TENSE intersects with the PERFECTIVE (i.e., NON-PROGRESSIVE ASPECT). This is
clear from the normal use of qatal and wayyiqtol.
— A situation that takes place after the moment of utterance is not yet a fact and hence
there is a relationship between the FUTURE TENSE and expressions of doubts (EPISTEMIC
MODALITY), possibility, wishes (DEONTIC MODALITY). The form yiqtol is associated with
MODALITY; this explains why this form is also used to express the jussive.
— Similarly there is some overlap between the PRESENT TENSE and various expressions of
certainty and actual potentiality, thus EPISTEMIC MODALITY. Some modal nuances of
yiqtol come out of this relationship.
— A situation can be conceived as already taking place and this explains the intersection
between the PERFECTIVE ASPECT, the PAST TENSE, and the IRREALIS (i.e, non-factual). The
so-called “epistolary perfect” in traditional grammar is part of this overlap. Many
languages actually use the form that indicates the past to express non-factual
situation, e.g. the use of should in You should be aware of the risks.
For further study, my articles on “Modality” and “Mood and Modality in Classical Hebrew”,
see. bibl. data in the course description.

EVIDENTIALITY. Evidentuality indicates the warrant or evidence that speaker has in making
the statement. Thus in The show seems to be a success, the speaker relies on some evidence for
the success, for example the applause heard rather than on subjective judgment. In some
languages, the form that expresses the perfective and the past can also indicate evidentiality.
For further studies, see my “Some Notes on Evidentiality in Biblical Hebrew”; see. bibl. data
in the course description.

Suggested works in general linguistics for further studies (the PIB library has all these): A. Y.
AIKHENVALD, Evidentiality, Oxford 2004; R.I. BINNICK, Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense & Aspect,
Oxford University Press 1991; R.I. BINNICK (ED.), The Oxford Handbook of Tense, Aspect, Oxford 2012; J.
BYBEE, “Modality in Grammar and Discourse: An Introductory Essay,” in J. BYBEE AND S. FLEISCHMANN
(eds.), Modality in Grammar and Discourse, Amsterdam/Philadelphia 1995; B. COMRIE, Aspect: An
Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and its Problems, Cambridge 1975; B. COMRIE, Tense, Cambridge
1985; F.R. PALMER, Mood and Modality, 2nd ed., Cambridge 2001; P. PORTNER, Modality, Oxford 2009.