Atemporal relations

Unlike the nominal and temporal categories, each of which characterises a single word class, the atemporal relation subsumes a range of word classes. These classes have two properties in common. Firstly, they profile a RELATION rather than a THING and are thus distinct from nouns. Secondly, as we saw earlier, the relation they profile is atemporal in the sense that it is cumulatively scanned and gives rise to a cognitive representation that is static in time. In this respect, atemporal relations are distinct from finite verb forms. However, in the same way that the sequentially scanned temporal relation can be simple or complex, the cumulatively scanned atemporal relation can also be simple or complex.

Simple and complex atemporal relations

A simple atemporal relation designates a STATE. Some examples are given in (16).

The predicative adjective in (16a) describes a STATE, as does the attributive adjective in (16b). The difference between these two examples is that (16a) is a clause, where the adjective collaborates with the copular verb in forming the predicate of the clause. (We discuss this type of construction in Chapter 17.) In contrast, (16b) is a noun phrase that profiles a THING (scientist), and the adjective modifies the head noun. We return to heads and modifiers in the next chapter, but for the time being we can describe the attributive adjective as having a noun as its TR. In contrast, while the adverb in (16c) also describes a STATE, it modifies a verb, or takes a PROCESS as its TR.

A complex atemporal relation encodes a complex static scene. Compare the examples in (16) with those in (17).

Observe that the preposition over in (17a) involves a multiplex TR. It follows that the relation encoded by this preposition is complex, because it profiles all the points in space at which the TR the sand and the LM the floor are related. In this example, the atemporal relation is still cumulatively scanned but gives rise to a more complex cognitive representation which consists of a ‘bundle’ of properties. A second example of a complex atemporal relation is the to-infinitive in the noun phrase in (17b). The base of this infinitival subordinate clause is a PROCESS, but due to summary scanning this expression is relational and atemporal and can therefore take on a modifying role, rather like an adjective. In other words, like an adjective, this infinitival subordinate clause has a noun (contestant) as its TR. We return to non-finite verb forms below.

Adjectives and adverbs

 At this juncture, we might pause to consider how adjectives and adverbs are considered to be relations, given that they only seem to interact with a single participant. In other words, in examples (16a) to (16c) the adjective and the adverb only describe the state of a single entity or act: the rocket scientist or the act of writing. Given Langacker’s claim that relational predications always have a prominent participant (the TR), we treat the rocket scientist or the act of writing as the TR in these examples. According to Langacker, the LM is implicit in the relational predications themselves. For example, we might paraphrase (16a) in terms of the scientist being ‘in a state of beauty’. In this sense, the scientist is the TR and the LM is ‘the state of beauty’, which is part of the relational predication itself. While this is the typical case for adjectives, compare example (16a) with example (18).

In this example, the predicative adjective fond participates in profiling a relation between two entities: that rocket scientist and chips. We use the expression ‘participates’ here because we have yet to establish what the copular verb con tributes to the clause, a point to which we return in Chapter 17. Adjectives like these are sometimes described as ‘transitive adjectives’ because, like transitive verbs, they can take a complement. Other examples include proud and envious. It is also worth emphasising that an atemporal relation that profiles a STATE may well have a PROCESS as its base. For example, in the sentence: That cup is broken, the adjective broken profiles the end state in a PROCESS. This explains why past participle forms can often function as adjectives.

Adpositions

 Example (16d) provides us with a more prototypical case of a relational predcation. In this example, the preposition in profiles a spatial relation between the TR (the letters) and the LM (the sink). Furthermore, this is a simple atemporal relation because it describes a STATE.

Participles

Recall from our discussion of example (17b) that Langacker analyses non-finite verb forms as atemporal relations. As we saw in Chapter 14, participles are verb forms like written and eating that cannot occur as the main verb in a sentence, but require an auxiliary verb. This property of participles is illustrated by examples (19)–(21).

In example (19a), has is the perfect aspect auxiliary and is followed by the participle written. In example (20a), was is the passive voice auxiliary, and is also followed by the participle written. In example (21a), is is the progressive aspect auxiliary and is followed by the participle writing. As the (b) examples show, the participles cannot occur as the main verb in a sentence without the relevant auxiliary. Participles are described as non-finite verb forms because they are not marked for tense. In each of the (a) examples in (19) to (21), it is the auxiliary verb that is marked for tense. In (19a), has is in its present tense form. Observe that if we change the auxiliary to the past tense form, the participle stays the same, which explains why it is described as non-finite:

Equally, in (20a), the passive auxiliary is in its past tense form, and in (21a) the progressive auxiliary is in its present tense form. The fact that participles are non-finite means that they can only occur without an auxiliary verb in subordinate clauses, where they often perform a modifying function. Compare example (20b) with example (23).

In this example, the passive participle written heads an adverbial ‘subordinate clause’ which modifies love letter. The fact that it is a modifier explains why it can be removed from the sentence without affecting its well-formedness (The love letter burst into flames). The main verb in this sentence is burst, which is a finite (past tense) verb form. The subordinate clause describes a property of the love letter but profiles a STATE rather than a PROCESS. However, like the adjective broken, the passive participle written in (23) has a PROCESS as its base and profiles the end STATE in that PROCESS. In Langacker’s model, participles are derived from PROCESSES by the affixation of the relevant morphology (-ing,-en and so on), and this has the effect of ‘suspending the sequential scanning of the verb stem’ (Langacker 2002: 82). This changes a PROCESS into an ATEMPO RAL RELATION. We will have more to say about auxiliaries and participles in Chapter 18, where we return to a fuller discussion of tense, aspect and mood.

Infinitives

 Infinitives occur in two forms. The to-infinitive is illustrated in example (24a). This is restricted to occurring in embedded clauses in English. The ‘bare infinitive’, which is the same as the to-infinitive minus the to, is illustrated in (24b) and (24c). As these examples show, the bare infinitive occurs after modal verbs (24b) and in imperative clauses (24c).

The infinitive is so called because it is another non-finite verb form: like participles, it is not marked for tense. If past tense forms are substituted for the infinitives in (24), the results are not well-formed.

Often, it is difficult to recognise the bare infinitive in English because it takes the same form as most present tense forms. Observe, though, that it does not show agreement with the subject:

Langacker extends the same analysis to infinitives as to participles, viewing both types of non-finite verb form as atemporal relations. While the English bare infinitive is restricted to occurring with modal auxiliaries and in imperative clauses, the to-infinitive patterns in a similar way to participles, occurring in subordinate clauses.

 As this section illustrates, while the notion of atemporal relations enables acharacterisation of adjectives, adverbs, adpositions and non-finite verb forms, we should be cautions about viewing these word classes as discrete and mutually exclusive categories in Langacker’s model. As atemporal relations, these word classes are characterised as members of one broad category whose properties may overlap. For example, we have seen that adjectives, adverbs and prepositions can all profile STATES, and we have also seen that expressions headed by different word classes can modify nouns. The examples in (27) illustrate the latter point.

In (27a), the noun shoes is modified by the adjective (phrase) lovely. In (27b), the same noun is modified by the preposition phrase in Lily’s wardrobe. In (27c), shoes is modified by an adverbial subordinate clause headed by the passive participle bought.

Our final challenge in this section is to establish the schematic representation of the atemporal relation. This is shown in (28), where we represent the atemporal relation as STATE.

اخر الاخبار

اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

الهيأة العليا لإحياء التراث تقيم حفلًا لتكريم الفائزين في مسابقة القصة القصيرة عن فاجعة الطف الأليمة

العتبة العباسية المقدسة تستقبل المشاركين في النسخة الثالثة من جائزة العميد الدولية القرآنية

العتبة العباسية المقدسة تطلق فعاليات ملتقى النورين القرآني الرمضاني الخامس في بابل

قسم الشؤون الفكرية ينظّم دورة تخصصية في فهرسة وصيانة المخطوطات بجامعة ديالى

المزيد

الآخبار الصحية

للطاقة وحماية القلب.. ما "التوقيت الذهبي" لأكل المكسرات؟

دراسة تكشف فائدة القيلولة لمدة 45 دقيقة

اختيار الزبادي الأنسب.. قرار يحدد مسار صحتك

هل يعدّ الصيام المتقطع حلا سحريا لخسارة الوزن؟.. دراسة تجيب

المزيد

الآخبار التكنلوجية

"علي بابا" تكشف عن نموذج جديد للذكاء الاصطناعي

اختراق علمي جديد.. استشعار ضوئي يرصد "دلالات السرطان"

وكالة الإمارات للفضاء تعلن تمديد مهمة "مسبار الأمل" حتى 2028

ظاهرة مذهلة .. شهدها 2 بالمئة من سكان العالم فقط

المزيد

مواضيع ذات صلة

Determiners and quantifiers

Nominal grounding predications

Class schemas

Temporal relations: verbs

Assumptions

Previous work

Temporal versus atemporal relations

Nominal versus relational predications

Abstractions

Expansibility and contractibility versus replicability

Homogeneity versus heterogeneity

Bounding