linguistics, telicity is the property of a verbor verb phrasethat presents an action or event as being complete in some sense. A verb or verb phrase with this property is said to be "telic", while a verb or verb phrase that presents an action or event as being "incomplete" is said to be "atelic".
Testing for telicity in English
One common way to gauge whether an English verb phrase is telic is to see whether such a phrase as "in an hour", in the sense of "within an hour", (known as a "time-frame adverbial") can be applied to it. Conversely, a common way to gauge whether it's atelic is to see whether such a phrase as "for an hour" (a "time-span adverbial") can be applied to it. [Verkuyl, Henk. 1972. "On the compositional nature of aspects." Dordrecht:Reidel.] [Dowty, David. 1979. "Word meaning and Montague Grammar." Dordrecht: Reidel. ISBN 9027710090.] [Krifka, Manfred 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Renate Bartsch, Johan van Benthem and Peter van Emde Boas (eds.), "Semantics and Contextual Expression:" 75-115. Dordrecht: Foris. ISBN 9067654434.] [Verkuyl, Henk. 1993. "A theory of aspectuality: the interaction between temporal and atemporal structure." Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521564522] This can be called the "time-span/time-frame test". According to this test, the verb phrase "built a house" is telic, whereas the minimally different "built houses" is atelic:
:Fine: "John built a house in a month.":Bad: *"John built a house for a month."::→ "built a house" is telic:Bad: *"John built houses in a month.":Fine: "John built houses for a month."::→ "built houses" is atelic
Other phrases can be tested similarly; for example, "walked home" is telic, because "John walked home in an hour" is fine, while "John walked home for an hour" is bad, and "walked around" is atelic, because "John walked around in an hour" is bad, while "John walked around for an hour" is fine.
In applying this test, one must be careful about a number of things.
*The tense and aspect of a verb may affect the result of this test; for example, phrases with progressive verb forms ("is going", "was talking", "has been doing", and so on) almost always accept "for an hour" and almost never accept "in an hour". The test is therefore primarily of interest for verb phrases with verbs in the
simple past tense.
*The phrase "in an hour", and phrases like it, are ambiguous; they can mean either "in the span of an hour", i.e. "within an hour", or "one hour from now". Only the former meaning is of interest; "She will be coming in an hour" is fine, but that says nothing about the telicity of the phrase "will be coming".
*Strictly speaking, there is a context in which "John built houses in a month" is fine; consider "Jack took three months to build a house, while John built houses in a month." Here, what is meant is "John built houses; he built each house in a month"; and in this sense, "built houses" is actually telic. It can be argued that the verb phrase "build houses" is, in fact, "telic" at one level and "atelic" at another: the telicity applies to the verb without the
pluralobject, and the atelicity applies to the verb and the object together.
Defining the relevant notion of "completeness"
One often encounters the notion that telic
verbsand verb phrases "refer" to events that "have endpoints", and that atelic ones "refer" to events or states that "don't have endpoints". The notion of "having endpoints" applies to "events in the world" rather than the "expressions" that refer to them. This is the most criticized property of this definition. [Borik, Olga. 2002. "Aspect and Reference Time". Oxford University Press. 2006. ISBN 0199291292. Aspect and reference time. Based on Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht University, 2002.] In fact, "every" event or state "in the world" begins and ends at some point, except, perhaps, for states that can be described as "the existence of the universe." Certainly, John's "being angry" has a beginning, and, unless John is somehow "eternally angry", it also has an endpoint. Thus, it is doubtful that one can define telic expressions by means of properties of the events or states that they "refer" to (A very similar problem arises with the notion that mass nouns refer to "things that can't be counted"). Thus, recent attempts at making the notion explicit focus on the "way" that telic expressions "refer" to, or "present" events or states.
Put differently, one can simply define telic verbs and verb phrases as referring to events "conceptualized or presented as" having endpoints, and atelic verbs and verb phrases as those conceptualized or presented as lacking endpoints.
This type of exercise can serve as a reminder of the futility of trying to link linguistic semantics to the real world without considering the intermediary agent of human cognition.
Tending towards a goal
According to Garey who introduced this term, telic verbs are "verbs expressing an action tending towards a goal envisaged as realized in a perfective tense, but as contingent in an imperfective tense"; atelic verbs, on the other hand, are "verbs which do not involve any goal nor endpoint in their semantic structure, but denote actions that are realized as soon as they begin". [Garey, Howard B. 1957. "Verbal aspects in French." Language 33:91–110.]
Quantization and cumulativity
Perhaps the most commonly assumed definition of telicity nowadays is the algebraic definition proposed by
Manfred Krifka. Krifka defines telic expressions as ones that are quantized. Atelic ones can be defined in terms of cumulative reference. An expression 'P' can be said to be quantized if and only if it satisfies the following implication, for any choice of x and y:::If x can be described by `P`, and y can also be described by 'P', then x is not a (mereological) proper part of y. Suppose, for example, that John built two houses. Then each of the two building events can be described as "built a house". But the building of the one house isn't, and indeed "cannot" be thought of a proper part of the building of the second. This contrasts with states describable as, say, "walk around aimlessly". If John walked around aimlessly for two hours, then there will be many proper parts of that, that last, say 10 minutes, or 1 hour, etc. which also can be described as "walk around aimlessly". Thus, for "walk around aimlessly", there will be many choices of x and y, such that both can be described as "walk around aimlessly", where x is a proper part of y. Hence, "build a house" is correctly characterized as telic and "walk around aimlessly" as atelic by this definition. Quantization can also be used in the definition of count nouns.
An expression 'P' is said to have cumulative reference if and only if, for any choice of x and y, the following implication holds:::If x can be described as 'P', and y can also be described as 'P', then the mereological sum of x and y can also be described as 'P'.For example, if there is an event of John walking around from 1pm to 2pm, and another event of his walking around from 2pm to 3pm, then there is, by necessity, a third event which is the sum of the other two, which is also an event of walking around. This doesn't hold for expressions like "built a house." If John built a house from time 1 to time 2, and then he built another house from time 2 to time 3, then the sum of these to events (from time 1 to time 3) is "not" an event that can be described by "built a house." Cumulativity can also be used in the characterization of
mass nouns, and in the characterization of the contrast between prepositionslike "to" and "towards," i.e. "towards" has cumulative reference to (sets of) paths, while "to" does not. [Zwarts, Joost. 2005. " [http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mIzMTkzM/paper.pdf Prepositional Aspect and the Algebra of Paths.] " "Linguistics and Philosophy" 28.6, 739-779.]
Telicity as an aspect
Telicity or "telic aspect" has been reading as a
grammatical aspectlately, indicating a reached goal or action completed as intended. Languages that contrast telic and atelic actions are Pirahã and Finniclanguages such as Finnish and Estonian; Czech also has a perfective suffix "pre-", which is additionally telic.
In Finnish, the telicity is marked on the object: the
accusativeis telic, and the partitiveis used to express atelicity. It should be noted that the terms "telic" and "atelic" are not traditionally used in Finnish grammatical description; instead, it is customary to speak of "resultitive" and "irresultative" sentences.
An example of the contrast between resultative and irresultative in Finnish:
* "Kirjoitin artikkelin." wrote-1sg article-accusative "I wrote the article (and finished it)"
* "Kirjoitin artikkelia." wrote-1sg article-partitive "I wrote/was writing the article (but did not necessarily finish it)"
The telic sentence "necessarily" requires finishing the article. In the atelic sentence, it is not expressed whether or not the article is finished. The atelic form expresses ignorance, i.e. atelic is not anti-telic: "Kirjoitin artikkelia ja sain sen valmiiksi" "I was writing the article- [partitive] and then got it- [accusative] finished" is correct. What is interpreted as the goal or result is determined by the context, e.g.
* "Ammuin karhun" — "I shot the bear (succeeded)"; i.e., "I shot the bear dead". ← implicit purpose
* "Ammuin karhua" — "I shot (towards) the bear"; i.e., "I shot at the bear (but it did not die)".
There are many verbs that correspond to only one telicity due to their inherent meaning. The partitive verbs are the same as atelic verbs in Garey's definition, that is, the action normally does not have a result or goal, and it would be logically and grammatically incorrect to place them in the telic aspect. However, even inherently atelic verbs such as "rakastaa" "to love" can in semantically unusual constructions, where a kind of result is involved, become telic:
* "Hän rakastaa minua." (s)he love-3sg me-partitive "(s)he loves me"
* "Hän rakastaa minut kuoliaaksi." (s)he love-3sg me-accusative dead-translative "(s)he loves me to death"
Furthermore, the telicity contrast can act as
case government, so that changing the case can change the meaning entirely. For example, "näin hänet" (I saw him-"acc") means "I saw him", but "näin häntä" (I saw him-"part") means "I met him". This is often highly irregular.
The use of a telic object may implicitly communicate that the action takes place in the future. For example,
* "Luen kirjan." "I will read the book"; the action can only be complete in the future.
* "Luen kirjaa." "I am reading a book" or "I will be reading a book"; no indication is given for the time.
Often telicity is superficially similar to the perfective aspect, and one can find descriptions such as "roughly perfective/imperfective". However, lexical pairs of perfective and imperfective verbs are found in Finnish, and this contrast can be superimposed with the telicity contrast.
Krifka, Manfred, [http://student.bu.ac.bd/~mumit/Research/NLP-bib/papers/Krifka98.pdf "Origins of Telicity"] . Also in "Events and Grammar", Susan Rothstein (ed.), 1998, ISBN 0792349407, pp. 197-236
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
Look at other dictionaries:
telicity — noun The property of a verb or verb phrase that presents an action or event as being complete in some sense. See Also: telic, atelic … Wiktionary
Grammatical aspect — In linguistics, the grammatical aspect of a verb defines the temporal flow (or lack thereof) in the described event or state. For example, in English the difference between I swim and I am swimming is a difference of aspect.Aspect, as discussed… … Wikipedia
Finnish language noun cases — Finnish nouns (including pronouns and numerals) as well as any modifying adjectives, superlatives or comparatives, can be declined by a large number of grammatical cases, which are detailed here. See also Finnish language grammar. TOC Finnish… … Wikipedia
Manfred Krifka — is director of the Center for General Linguistics (Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, ZAS) at the Humboldt University of Berlin, and editor of the academic journal Theoretical Linguistics. Contents 1 See also 2 Notes and references … Wikipedia
Estonian language — Infobox Language name=Estonian nativename=eesti keel familycolor=Uralic states=Estonia region=Northern Europe speakers=1.1 million fam2=Finno Ugric fam3=Finno Volgaic fam4=Finno Lappic fam5=Baltic Finnic nation=EST|Estonia EUR|European Union… … Wikipedia
Telic — Telic, i.e. a purposeful or defined action may refer to:*Grammatically, indicating telicity *A central argument of Teleology says that the world has clearly been constructed in a purposeful telic rather than a chaotic manner, and must therefore… … Wikipedia
Finnish language — language name=Finnish nativename=suomi pronunciation=/ˈsuo.mi/ states=FIN EST Flag|Ingria Flag|Karelia NOR SWE Flag|Torne Valley region=Northern Europe speakers=about 6 million script=Latin alphabet (Finnish variant) familycolor=Uralic fam2=Finno … Wikipedia
Chipewyan — The Chipewyan ( Denésoliné or Dënesųłiné ) are a Dene Aboriginal people in Canada, whose ancestors were the Taltheilei. There are approximately 11,000 Chipewyan living in the Canadian Arctic regions around Hudson Bay, including Manitoba and the… … Wikipedia
Aktionsart — The aktionsart (pronounced|ʔakˈʦi̯oːnsˌʔaɐ̯t, plural aktionsarten IPA| [ʔakˈʦi̯oːnsˌʔaɐ̯tn̩] ) or lexical aspect of a verb is a part of the way in which that verb is structured in relation to time. Any event, state, process, or action a verb… … Wikipedia
Predicate (grammar) — In traditional grammar, a predicate is one of the two main parts of a sentence (the other being the subject, which the predicate modifies). In current linguistic semantics, a predicate is an expression that can be true of something. Thus, the… … Wikipedia