Basics of Verbal Aspect: 2 of 5 by Constantine Campbell

Verbal Aspect: what it is and what it isn’t

In yesterday’s post, I began to describe what verbal aspect is, and why it matters. Before we can launch straight into its practical application for reading Greek text, however, I think it’s important to talk a little more about what aspect is, and what it isn’t. There is a lot of confusion out there about verbal aspect, and especially how it relates to ‘tense’ and a thing called Aktionsart.

Tense

When most of us first learn Greek, the verbs are labeled as tenses. The aorist is a past tense, the present is a present tense, the future is a future tense. Calling the verbs ‘tenses’ usually implies that temporal meaning is built into the Greek forms. Past meaning is built into the aorist; present meaning is built into the present.

It doesn’t take long when reading the Greek New Testament, however, to discover that tense is not the whole story. We soon discover verbs in the present tense that refer to the past. There are also past tenses that refer to the present. Is time really built into the Greek verbs? If so, why do there seem to be so many exceptions?

A small but growing number of scholars (myself included) do not think that tense is built into Greek verbs (yes, even in the indicative mood). Each verb has a strong temporal tendency (aorists normally refer to the past, etc.), but this is due to what each verb ‘does’ in the context, rather than being built into the verb itself. But even if you do think that tense is built into Greek verbs, you still need to understand that aspect is at work too. In fact, those scholars who do believe that tense exists also acknowledge that aspect is more important.

Besides that issue, what’s the difference between two past tenses in Greek? Tense can’t be the whole story with Greek verbs, since there is a difference in meaning between the aorist and imperfect, which are both past tenses. The nineteenth century answer to this question—the difference between two past tenses in Greek—is the type of action, or Aktionsart.

Aktionsart

Aktionsart literally means "type of action". There are lots of types of action. There are punctiliar actions, iterative actions, ingressive actions, and others too. If an action happened as a once-off, instantaneous event, it is called punctiliar. If the action was repeated over and over, it is called iterative. If the action is seen as beginning, it is called ingressive.

Aktionsart refers to how an action actually takes place—what sort of action it is. Aspect refers to viewpoint—how the action is viewed. They are two different categories, though occasionally the terms get mixed up, or are even used interchangeably in grammars and commentaries. Sometimes we need to work out whether an author means Aktionsart when they use the term ‘aspect’ and vice-versa.

We can see the difference between aspect and Aktionsart through a favourite example of mine, found in Romans 5:14. In that verse we are told that Death reigned from the time of Adam to Moses. The verb "reigned" expresses perfective aspect—the view from the helicopter. We are given a summary of what happened; we are told simply that it happened. This is the external viewpoint. But when we ask what actually happened, we are able to say a range of other things. For starters, this action took a long time! There were many years between Adam and Moses. Death’s reign between Adam and Moses was an ongoing event. This was not a once-off, instantaneous type of action. With this example, we can appreciate that there is a clear difference between aspect and Aktionsart. Aspect refers to how the action is viewed: it is viewed externally as a whole. Aktionsart refers to what actually happened: it was an ongoing event that spanned many years.

Finally, I should mention another distinction between aspect and Aktionsart. Most Greek scholars now agree that aspect is built into the verb (it is semantic), while Aktionsart is not built into the verb (it is pragmatic). This means that whenever you see an aorist, it will convey perfective aspect, because perfective aspect is built in. But only some aorists will be punctiliar. Others will be iterative. And others still will be ingressive. These Aktionsart descriptions are not built into the aorist, but are worked out from what the aorist is ‘doing’ in the context.

So, before we actually look at some Greek text in tomorrow’s post, we should understand these things.

1. Verbal aspect is viewpoint. Perfective aspect conveys an external view of an action. Imperfective aspect conveys an internal view of an action. Aspect is built into Greek verbs.

2. Time (or temporal reference) is not necessarily built into Greek verbs (though this is debated). However, each verb has a characteristic temporal ‘tendency’.

3. Aktionsart refers to what ‘actually happened’. It is not built into the verb, but is a product of the verb in context.

Constantine Campbell (Ph.D., Macquarie University) is lecturer in Greek and New Testament at Moore Theological college in Newtown, New South Wales, Australia.

Comments

[Peter G.]

Oh this is so helpful. Thank you Dr. Campbell. When I started dipping into verbal aspect a few years back, all I had available was Stanley Porter's "Verbal Aspect." Needless to say, it wasn't the best introduction to the topic for a linguistic novice.

I've got your book on my desk and I'm just waiting for the Thanksgiving break to dive in.

[Con Campbell]

You're very welcome!

[Kyle]

The idea of viewpoint is very interesting to me. It makes a lot of sense that an author would be describing how he interpreted the action rather than how the action actually occurred. Granted they can overlap. I can see very easily how this works in narrative when the author can choose how to view the action, but how does this work in epistles or personal communication? It seems to me that the viewpoint is somehow different because the author is more caught up in the action and maybe not able to choose what kind of viewpoint to take. Is there a different dynamic in the epistles or am I just making things up?

[stephenmac]

Thank you for another very clear and helpful article.

If context is important to meaning and understanding of the text, then does Aktionsart and "what actually happened" play just as important role in understanding and translating? I would have thought that divorcing word and context (taking it to the extreme) would mean that we would lose something. I think what I am trying to ask is that if aspect is built into the verb itself, and aktionsart is the way that the verb is used within a context, why is aspect more important than context, considering that context plays such an important role in translation?

[Blake Reas]

I first learned about aspect in Mounce's "Basics of Biblical Greek". He speaks of it as continuous(present and imperfect) and undefined (aorist and perfect). I am not sure how helpful the parade analogy has been in explaining aspect to me.

Point in case is above. When we say Adam and Eve sinned are we not viewing the event as one completed action? Aren't we viewing this "outside" of narrative time? The parade analogy brings in the element of time, which is not part of aspect (correct me if I am wrong, I am a novice).

I guess what I am trying to express is this: When we view something from a helicopter we see the actions as on going, and unfolding before us in a continuous manner, thus the analogy seems to confuse continuous and the undefined aspects of aspect (I had no other word to use!).

If I am sitting in a helicopter and I see Sally sitting in a chair, isn't that continous aspect regardless of if I am subjectively there? Then what difference does all of this make?

Sorry if this sounds really confused, but I am!

[ben]

Dr. Campbell's descriptions are fascinating and (as Stephen noted) very clear and helpful. Some interesting developments since 'A New Syntax of the Greek Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach', by K.L.McKay, Lang, 1994.

I look forward to studying Dr. Campbell's book in more depth, applying, and testing his descriptors. His descriptors sound very spatial, so I attempted to diagram them (see .ppt)
http://yhseven.googlepages.com/aktionsart
It's an over-simplification, but may aid someone on their first exposure to Verbal Aspect. I look forward to seeing someone else develop/correct/improve my little powerpoint file.

[ben]

re. Blake's comment (hopefully Dr. Campbell will correct or agree), I think "continuous aspect" is confusing since
1) 'continuous' describes the actor doing the action (the guy acting out the verb) and
2) 'aspect' describes where the author sits, relative to the actor.
I think that's the first assumption of Verbal Aspect: that the verb carries information about
1) the actor (subject doing the verb, or object receiving the verb)
2) the position of the author/speaker [THIS IS THE NEW INFO' FOR US], and
3) the action itself.
e.g.
1. the guy eats (masculine, present);
2. I saw him from my certain distance and perspective;
3. eating (biting, chewing, swallowing) is happening.

[Con Campbell]

Thanks everyone. There's lots to address there, but I'll just make a few comments.

Kyle, the issue of genre is important, and I don't address it much in the book. In my first book, I look specifically at the genre of narrative, and have several things to say about how aspect functions in it. The bottom line, however, is that aspect remains aspect across all genres, and basically does the same things on the level of the sentence. At a level beyond the sentence (discourse analysis), different genres become more significant for the function of aspect. For example, aspect has certain functions on the wider scale within the narrative genre that are not shared within epistles. There's lots more that could be explored on this front, and perhaps a Koinonia reader will take the research further!

Stephenmac, all the elements are important when it comes to translation and exegesis; I tend not to think in terms of what's most important etc. Verbal aspect is, however, constant. Lexemes change, contexts change, but an aorist will always be perfective in aspect. In that regard, it is 'prior', but all the elements matter in the end.

Blake, sorry but I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. May I humbly suggest that the best thing to do at this stage is work through my book and see how you go!

[Irving Salzman]

Excellent post. Well reasoned and clearly argued! There's nothing like clarity when it comes to creating understanding!

[star trek dvd]

I am very enjoy your blog, your blog is very true of the bar, hoping to see you more exciting content! I wish you have a happy day! http://www.star-trek-dvd.com