In:Thinking and Speaking About Time: A cognitive linguistic approach
Edited by Rita Brdar-Szabó and Mario Brdar
[Human Cognitive Processing 81] 2026
► pp. 384–399
Chapter 14Taking stance through grammar
Perfective vs. imperfective aspect
Published online: 27 January 2026
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.81.14bri
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.81.14bri
Abstract
Non-referential uses of deictic expressions are
those whose primary motivation does not lie in relating a referent
to the situation of speech, but rather in suggesting a particular
attitude on the part of the speaker. Together, they can be described
as grammatical means of taking stance. They illustrate the
disposition of grammatical categories to harvest expressive
functions as part of their meaning potential. Such uses are
typically relegated to the realm of pragmatics as a function of the
interaction between an expression’s “canonical” semantics and
features of the context. However, I present a case where the modal,
non-temporal meaning characterizing uses of a grammatical marker of
time can in fact be analyzed as an integral part of its semantic
make-up.
Keywords: aspect, grounding, (im)perfectivity
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Grounding and progressive aspect in Cognitive Grammar
- 3.Non-temporal uses of the progressive
- 4.The (present) progressive as a grounding predication
- 5.Conclusion
Acknowledgments Notes References
References (25)
Anthonissen, L., De Wit, A., & Mortelmans, T. 2016. Aspect
meets modality: A semantic analysis of the German
am-progressive. Journal
of Germanic
Linguistics, 28, 1–30.
2021. Grounding. In X. Wen & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of cognitive
linguistics (344–358). New York: Routledge.
Budts, S. 2020. On
periphrastic do and the modal auxiliaries: A connectionist
approach to language
change. University of Antwerp, doctoral
dissertation.
Davidse, K. 2004. The
interaction of quantification and identification in English
determiners. In M. Achard, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language,
culture and
mind (507–533). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
De Wit, A., Patard, A., & Brisard, F. 2013. A
contrastive analysis of the present progressive in French
and English. Studies in
Language, 37, 846–879.
De Wit, A., Petré, P., & Brisard, F. 2020. Standing
out with the
progressive. Journal of
Linguistics, 56, 479–514.
Fleischman, S. 1989. Temporal
distance: A basic linguistic
metaphor. Studies in
Language, 13, 1–50.
1990. Tense
and narrativity: From medieval performance to modern
fiction. Austin: University of Texas Press.
1995. Imperfective
and
irrealis. In J. Bybee, & S. Fleischman (Eds.), Modality
in grammar and
discourse (519–551). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Goldsmith, J. & Woisetschlaeger, E. 1982. The
logic of the English
progressive. Linguistic
Inquiry, 13, 79–89.
Hommerberg, C., & Paradis, C. 2014. Constructing
credibility through representations in the discourse of
wine: Evidentiality, temporality and epistemic
control. In D. Glynn & M. Sjölin (Eds.), Subjectivity
and epistemicity: Corpus, discourse, and literary approaches
to
stance (211–238). Lund: Lund University Press.
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J. 1999. Grammatical
constructions and linguistic generalizations: The
What’s X doing Y?
construction. Language, 75, 1–33.
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations
of Cognitive
Grammar, volume II: Descriptive
application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
2002a. Deixis
and
subjectivity. In F. Brisard (Ed.), Grounding:
The epistemic footing of deixis and
reference (1–28). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
2002b. Remarks
on the English grounding
systems. In F. Brisard (Ed.), Grounding:
The epistemic footing of deixis and
reference (29–38). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
2015. How
to build an English
clause. Journal of Foreign
Language Teaching and Applied
Linguistics, 2, 1–45.
2017. Grounding,
semantic functions, and absolute
quantifiers. English Text
Construction, 10, 233–248.
Ljung, M. 1980. Reflections
on the English
progressive. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.