The Prominence of Tense, Aspect and Mood

Author: D. N. Shankara Bhat (D.N.S. Bhat) Published: c. 1999 Publisher: John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia Series: Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS), Volume 49 Language: English Pages: 198 (+ front matter) Source quality: Clean digital PDF; full text extractable

← Back to folder

Book Overview

The Prominence of Tense, Aspect and Mood is Bhat’s major English-language typological monograph. Based on a survey of world languages, it establishes that languages systematically specialise in one of the three major verbal categories — tense, aspect, or mood — rather than giving equal prominence to all three. This specialisation allows Bhat to classify languages as tense-prominent, aspect-prominent, or mood-prominent.

The work has two parts. Part 1 (Chapters 1–4) is a descriptive study of the three categories as they function across languages. Part 2 (Chapters 5–7) develops the typological argument: what “prominence” means, how to classify languages, and what correlatable grammatical characteristics distinguish each type.

The book directly underpins Bhat’s argument about Kannada: Kannada is a tense-prominent Dravidian language, and its grammar should be described using tense-based categories, not the mood- or aspect-centred frameworks borrowed from Sanskrit grammar.

Preface
Chapter 1 — Introduction
Part 1 — A Descriptive Study
Chapter 2 — Category of Tense
Chapter 3 — Category of Aspect
Chapter 4 — Category of Mood
Part 2 — A Typological Study
Chapter 5 — Basis of the Typology
Chapter 6 — Classification of Languages
Chapter 7 — Correlatable Characteristics
Cross-References to Other DNS Bhat Works

Preface

This monograph is an expanded and revised version of a 1994 report Bhat submitted to India’s University Grants Commission, originally titled Tense, Aspect and Mood in Indian Languages
An invitation from Prof. Johan van der Auwera to spend six months at Antwerp University (1997) allowed Bhat to expand the scope to languages worldwide
Bhat acknowledges the Central Institute of Indian Languages (CIIL), Mysore, where he was based, as having one of India’s best linguistics libraries
The typological classification of languages by TAM prominence was already sketched in the 1994 report; the Antwerp visit allowed confirmation and refinement against a broader language sample

Chapter 1 — Introduction

1.1 Universalistic and Differentiating Approaches

Typological linguistics has two competing approaches:
- Universalistic approach: assumes that all languages share fundamental structural properties; differences are surface variation over universal deep structure
- Differentiating approach: treats differences between languages as real and theoretically significant; classifications reflect genuine structural divergence
Classical language universals research (Greenberg, Chomsky generative tradition) is largely universalistic — it seeks to establish what holds for all languages
The Differentiating approach, which Bhat favours, instead asks: in what ways do languages genuinely differ? — and uses those differences to build typologies
Historical example: the debate over grammatical relations (subject, object) in languages like Kannada and Manipuri — earlier scholars assumed they had the same relational structure as European languages; careful differentiating study showed they did not
Bhat’s position: typology should not assume universality before enquiring into it; observed differences deserve more weight than assumed similarities

1.2 Nature of the Present Study

This study examines tense, aspect, and mood (TAM) — the three major verbal categories concerned with how events are located and characterised in time and reality
Both universalistic and differentiating approaches can be used within TAM studies — Bhat uses both but gives priority to the differentiating
A “restrictive” typological study (focused on a specific region or language family) can reveal correlations missed by broader surveys; Bhat began with Indian languages precisely for this reason
The central claim: languages do not give equal prominence to all three TAM categories — they select one as the primary, obligatory, and most pervasive category

1.3 Organisation

Part 1 (Ch. 2–4): descriptive — what tense, aspect, and mood are, how they function in languages
Part 2 (Ch. 5–7): typological — the basis for the prominence classification, how languages are classified, and what grammatical properties correlate with each type

Part 1 — A Descriptive Study

Chapter 2 — Category of Tense

2.1 Introduction

Tense marks the temporal location of an event in relation to a reference point (typically the speech act)
Three basic tense distinctions across languages: past (event before utterance), present (simultaneous), future (after utterance)
Many languages use only a two-way distinction: past vs. non-past (including Kannada, English, Tamil)
Some languages (e.g., Hopi) have been claimed to lack tense entirely, though this is contested

2.2 Deictic Tense

Deictic tense locates an event relative to the speech time (utterance time)
Problem with “present” tense: for non-durative events, by the time you utter a sentence about an event, the event is already past — so present tense is often used for habitual or stative meanings
- Kurukh example: present tense verb denotes mainly habitual events because the instantaneous event is past by utterance time
Solution used by some languages: a distinct durative/progressive suffix for ongoing non-habitual present events (e.g., Kurukh suffix lì)
Kannada uses non-past to cover both present and future; verbs denoting states show a three-way distinction (past/present/future) while event verbs show two-way (past/non-past)
Bhat gives detailed Kannada paradigms showing the interaction of tense and aktionsart (state vs. event)
Some languages use “past” realis forms even for future events — showing that the tense–mood boundary is porous

2.3 Non-Deictic Tense

Non-deictic tense locates an event relative to another event mentioned in the sentence (not speech time)
Three relations: prior (anterior), simultaneous, posterior (relative tense)
Kannada has three non-deictic tense converbs (non-finite verbal forms): prior participle (-i), simultaneous (-utu), posterior (-alu)
These converbs allow complex temporal chaining of clauses without finite verbs
Example: kattarisu-tta beyisu-tt-ene = “I will cook the fruit while cutting it” (simultaneous)
Kannada verbal nouns also carry tense: past vs. non-past nominal forms allow temporal distinctions in embedded clauses

2.4 Temporal Adverbials

Temporal adverbials complement tense by providing more specific temporal information
They use the same parameters as tense (before/after speech time) but can add precision
Tense and temporal adverbials generally agree in their temporal orientation in a sentence

Chapter 3 — Category of Aspect

3.1 Introduction

Tense = when an event occurs; Aspect = how an event unfolds internally
Aspect describes the temporal structure of an event: whether it is viewed as a whole, as ongoing, as completed, as repeating, etc.
Unlike tense (which relates event to reference point), aspect relates to the internal contour of the event itself

3.2 Perfective and Imperfective

The most widespread aspectual distinction in languages is perfective (event viewed as a complete whole) vs. imperfective (event viewed as ongoing/incomplete)
Slavic languages grammaticalise this as a primary verbal category
In Dravidian languages (including Kannada), perfectivity is expressed lexically through vector verbs (phase verbs) rather than as an obligatory grammatical category:
- Tamil viṭu (“let go”, completive) vs. muṭi (“finish”, completive with emphasis on terminal phase)
- These are not obligatory markers of aspect but optional aspectual qualifiers
This is evidence for Kannada/Dravidian being tense-prominent rather than aspect-prominent

3.3 Phasal Aspects

Phasal aspects mark phases within an event: inception (begin), continuation (keep/continue), termination (stop), completion (finish)
Languages express these through auxiliary verbs, vector verbs, or suffixes
Kannada phasal verbs attach to converbs: suru madu (begin), iru (continue), mugi (complete), biḍu (stop/complete with finality)
These are not grammatically obligatory in Kannada — speakers use them when phase information is pragmatically relevant

3.4 Quantificational Aspects

Quantificational aspects specify how often or how much: habitual, iterative, distributive, frequentative
Kannada expresses habitual meaning through the non-past tense form (non-durable events use non-past for habituals)
Distributive and iterative meanings are conveyed through reduplication (a native Dravidian strategy)

3.5 Situational and Viewpoint Aspects

Situational aspect (Aktionsart) = the inherent temporal structure of the verb’s meaning (e.g., know is stative, arrive is momentaneous, build is accomplishment)
Viewpoint aspect = the grammatically expressed perspective on the event’s temporal structure
This distinction (Smith 1991) is important: situational aspect is lexical, viewpoint aspect is grammatical
Bhat surveys how languages grammaticalise viewpoint aspect differently — some make it obligatory (Slavic), most do not

3.6 Use of Aspectual Adverbials

Aspectual adverbials (still, already, just, soon) can signal aspect meaning independent of grammatical markers
In Kannada, these carry much of the aspectual information — the language relies on lexical/adverbial strategies rather than grammatical obligatoriness

Chapter 4 — Category of Mood

4.1 Introduction

Mood = the speaker’s attitude toward the actuality of an event
Three parameters for modal distinctions:
1. Speaker’s opinion/judgment about whether the event occurred (epistemic mood)
2. Evidence available to the speaker (evidentiality)
3. Need or requirement for the event to occur (deontic mood)

4.2 Epistemic Mood

Realis/irrealis: realis = event treated as actually occurring; irrealis = event treated as non-actual (hypothetical, counterfactual, future)
Some languages make realis/irrealis the primary modal distinction
Judgements: degrees of speaker certainty — doubtful, probable, definite, certain
Evidentials: basis of speaker’s knowledge — direct witness, reported, inferred (from sound, from observation, from general knowledge)
Case study: Ladakhi (Tibeto-Burman) has an extraordinarily rich evidential system — six inference categories, multiple reportive/experiential distinctions, all grammatically obligatory
- Verbs in Ladakhi must carry evidential marking; speakers cannot make a statement without indicating their evidence
- This makes Ladakhi a mood-prominent language par excellence

4.3 Deontic Mood

Deontic mood = speaker attitudes about requirement, permission, ability, and obligation
Three sub-types: permission (you may), necessity (you must), ability (you can)
Deontic and epistemic moods interact: the stronger the compulsion for an event, the more certain the speaker is about its occurrence — this explains why many languages use the same forms ambiguously for both
English may, should, must are all ambiguous between epistemic and deontic readings

4.4 Epistemic Moods and Interrogatives

Interrogatives are semantically related to epistemic moods: asking a question = expressing epistemic uncertainty
Languages that grammaticalise mood prominently often show complex interplay between question types and epistemic distinctions
Polar questions (yes/no) differ from content questions (wh-) in their epistemic import

4.5 Deontic Moods and Imperatives

Imperatives are a grammaticalised form of deontic mood (command = maximum deontic force)
Languages vary in how many degrees of imperative force they express: command, request, wish, exhortation
The hortative (“let us”) connects with the deontic category of inclusive desire

Modal adverbials (certainly, probably, possibly, necessarily) express mood meanings lexically
In mood-non-prominent languages, these adverbials carry much of the modal information that prominent-mood languages express grammatically

Part 2 — A Typological Study

Chapter 5 — Basis of the Typology

Core claim: languages do not distribute grammatical prominence equally across tense, aspect, and mood — they select one as their primary verbal category
What “prominence” means for a category:
1. Grammaticalization: the category has dedicated grammatical forms (not just lexical or adverbial expression)
2. Obligatoriness: every finite verb must mark the category (speakers cannot leave it unmarked)
3. Systematicity: the distinctions within the category form a coherent, interconnected system
4. Pervasiveness: the category extends beyond the finite verb — into participles, nominalisations, converbs, and even non-verbal predicates
A language is T-prominent, A-prominent, or M-prominent depending on which category scores highest across these four criteria
Alternative categories: languages that don’t fit any of the three types neatly may be using alternative categorisations (e.g., aspect-related aktionsart distinctions expressed through noun-class systems)
Bias in grammars: most grammars are written by linguists trained in tense-prominent European languages — this creates a systematic bias in the description of aspect-prominent and mood-prominent languages (they get misdescribed through a tense lens). Bhat’s “red glass” analogy: trying to understand colour while looking through a red filter.
Diachronic considerations: a language in transition from one type to another may show conflicting features; Bhat’s typology is of “idealised” types, not snapshots of transitional stages
Hindi/Marathi example: long described as tense-prominent (past/non-past distinction), these Indo-Aryan languages are better understood as aspect-prominent — the “past” form is actually a perfective form

Chapter 6 — Classification of Languages

6.2 Tense-Prominent Languages

Example set: Dravidian languages (Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam)

Dravidian languages have obligatory tense marking on all finite verbs
Past/non-past distinction is the minimal required tense; some Dravidian languages also mark future separately
Tense is systematic: the same morphological markers appear consistently across verb classes, persons, and numbers
Tense is pervasive: Dravidian extends tense to adjectival participles, converbs, nominalisations, and conditional forms — tense governs even non-finite domains
- Kannada example: bid-d-a (fell, past) vs. bir-uva (falling, non-past) in adjectival position
- Even verbal nouns carry tense: bandu (past nominative) vs. baruva (non-past nominative)
- Temporal adverbial clauses (rātri āgittu “it became night when he came”) also carry full tense
Aspect and mood distinctions exist in Dravidian but are not obligatory: vector verbs encode aspect optionally; modal markers are used when specifically needed

Evidence for tense-prominence over aspect-prominence in Dravidian:

Aspect distinctions (perfective/imperfective) are expressed through phase verbs, not obligatory suffixes
Tamil viṭu (completive) is optional and adds aspectual nuance; aspect is not grammatically required

6.3 Aspect-Prominent Languages

Example set: Slavic languages (Russian, Polish), Mandarin Chinese, many Niger-Congo

Slavic verbs are inherently either perfective or imperfective — aspect is marked on the verb root itself (not just by a suffix)
In Mandarin, aspect particles (le, guo, zhe) are obligatory and systematically distributed; tense is not grammaticalised
Aspect-prominent languages may have tense-like distinctions, but these emerge from aspect interactions rather than obligatory tense marking

6.4 Mood-Prominent Languages

Example sets: Many Papuan languages, Ladakhi, Tibeto-Burman, some North American languages

In mood-prominent languages, every verbal form must indicate the speaker’s epistemic or deontic relationship to the event
Muna (Sulawesi): realis/irrealis is the primary distinction — all verbs require realis or irrealis marking
Ladakhi: every verb marks evidential type — the language cannot produce a statement without indicating the evidence basis
Some Australian languages (e.g., Kayardild): modal distinctions expressed not just in verbs but in case markers on nouns — showing extreme pervasiveness of mood
The realis/irrealis distinction may be the most widespread “mood-prominent” marker globally

Chapter 7 — Correlatable Characteristics

This chapter validates the TAM prominence typology by showing that the three language types differ along multiple additional grammatical dimensions:

7.1 Effects of Decategorization

When verbs are used as nouns (nominalisation), they lose verbal properties (decategorization)
Tense-prominent languages: nominalisations lose tense marking; aspect and mood distinctions disappear in nominalized forms
Mood-prominent languages: nominalisations retain evidential distinctions — showing how deeply mood pervades the grammar

7.2 Ergativity Split

Split ergativity (some clauses use accusative alignment, others ergative) often correlates with TAM:
- In Hindi/Marathi (aspect-prominent): perfective clauses are ergative, imperfective are accusative — the split is aspect-conditioned
- In Tibeto-Burman languages (mood-prominent): ergativity splits along evidential lines

7.3 Tensedness Parameter

Chomsky’s “tensedness parameter” (whether finite clauses must be tensed) is relevant here
Tense-prominent languages have obligatory tense on all finite verbs; mood-prominent and aspect-prominent languages may have optional or absent tense on finite verbs
This parameter is not a simple yes/no but a continuum related to prominence type

7.4 Absence of State Verbs

Languages vary in whether they have a distinct class of stative verbs
In some mood-prominent languages, stative meanings are expressed through nominal predicates rather than verbs — the category of “state verb” may not exist as a separate verbal class

7.5 Variations in Encoding

The order of TAM markers within the verb complex correlates with prominence type
In tense-prominent languages, tense markers tend to be outermost (closest to person/number agreement), reflecting their syntactic scope
In mood-prominent languages, mood markers may be outermost

7.6 Differing Points of View

A major section examining how the same surface distinction is interpreted differently depending on prominence type:

7.6.1 The Concept of Perfect

“Perfect” (current relevance of past event) is often described as a tense category, but Bhat shows it is fundamentally an aspect category
Tense-prominent languages may grammaticalise perfect as a past tense; aspect-prominent languages treat it as resultative aspect
This cross-linguistic variation in how “perfect” is categorised directly reflects TAM prominence

7.6.2 The Concept of Future

Future is often described as a tense, but in mood-prominent languages it is inherently a modal category (irrealis)
The ambiguity of future between tense and mood (English will = epistemic certainty about future = irrealis) reflects this
In tense-prominent languages like Kannada, future is subsumed under non-past or expressed through modal suffixes

7.6.3 The Concept of Habitual

Habitual (regular, repeated events) sits at the intersection of tense and aspect
In tense-prominent Dravidian languages, habitual is expressed through the non-past tense form
In aspect-prominent languages, habitual is often expressed as imperfective aspect

7.6.4 The Concept of Negation

Negation interacts differently with TAM in different prominence types
In some mood-prominent languages, negation is itself modal (negative = irrealis)
In Dravidian tense-prominent languages, negation has its own category: a negative converb form that carries tense information

7.7 Paths of Grammaticalization

Languages can shift their prominence type over time — this is documented through grammaticalization paths
Common paths: Lexical verb → Grammatical TAM marker → Obligatory inflection
Aspect-to-tense drift is well documented: an aspect distinction (perfective = past) gets reanalysed as tense
Mood-to-tense drift: irrealis (future) gets reanalysed as tense (future tense)
These diachronic paths explain why some languages show hybrid features

7.8 Foregrounding Sequential Events

Discourse-level foregrounding uses TAM to distinguish main storyline events (foregrounded) from background events
In tense-prominent languages: sequential foreground events typically use past tense finite verbs; background events use participles or converbs
In aspect-prominent languages: perfective = foregrounded; imperfective = backgrounded
These narrative-level patterns confirm the prominence typology at the discourse level

7.9 Conclusion

The TAM prominence typology is validated by correlations across: decategorisation, ergativity splits, tensedness parameter, state verb absence, encoding order, and conceptual interpretation of perfect/future/habitual/negation
The typology is not exhaustive — some languages do not fit cleanly into any type, but the three idealized types are real attractors in the cross-linguistic space
Implications for language description: grammars should describe each language’s primary TAM category on its own terms, not impose a tense-based framework on aspect-prominent or mood-prominent languages

Key Concepts

Term	Meaning
Tense-prominent language	Language where tense is obligatory, systematic, and pervasive (e.g., Dravidian)
Aspect-prominent language	Language where aspect is the primary obligatory verbal category (e.g., Slavic, Mandarin)
Mood-prominent language	Language where mood/evidentiality is the primary obligatory verbal category (e.g., Ladakhi, Muna)
Deictic tense	Tense relative to speech time
Non-deictic tense	Relative tense (prior/simultaneous/posterior to another event)
Realis/irrealis	Core mood distinction: whether an event is treated as actual or non-actual
Evidentiality	Grammatical marking of the evidence basis for a speaker’s statement
Pervasiveness	How widely a TAM category extends beyond the finite verb (to participles, nominalisations, etc.)
Aktionsart	The inherent temporal structure of a verb’s meaning (lexical aspect)
Vector verb	Auxiliary verb encoding phase (completion, inception, continuation) in Dravidian
Grammaticalization path	Historical process by which a lexical item becomes a grammatical marker

Cross-References to Other DNS Bhat Works

Related Book	Connection
08 — ಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕೆ ಮಹಾಪ್ರಾಣ ಯಾಕೆ ಬೇಡ	This typological work is the academic foundation for the mahāprāṇa argument: Kannada is tense-prominent Dravidian and its grammar reflects that, not Sanskrit’s mood/aspect systems
14 — ನಿಜಕ್ಕೂ ಹಳೆಗನ್ನಡ ವ್ಯಾಕರಣ ಎಂತಹದು	Direct application: the grammar of Old Kannada should be analysed using tense-prominence framework, not Sanskrit vibhakti-based grammar
18 — ಕನ್ನಡ ನುಡಿಯ ಬಗೆಗೆ ಚಿಂತನೆ	Popularization of the same arguments for general Kannada-speaking audience
02 — ಕನ್ನಡ ನುಡಿಯ ಒಳರಚನೆ	Structural description of Kannada that applies the tense-prominence framework to native Kannada grammar
04 — ಮಾತು ಮತ್ತು ಬರಹದ ನಡುವಿನ ಗೊಂದಲ	The confusion between speech and writing connects to the confusion between Sanskrit-based and Kannada-based grammatical descriptions