138 Francis G. H. Pang taxonomy as the framework for the procedural characters48. Aspect and Aktionsart, although distinct, are closely related systems49. Unlike Porter and to a less extent McKay, Fanning argues that temporal indications are grammaticalized on the basis of the combination of tense-forms and other features of lexical and contextual meaning. He also asserts a temporal relationship between these contextual features and the indicative verb50. Thus for example, even though both the Present and the Imperfect take “the aspect-value of internal viewpoint concerning an occurrence”, the Imperfect indicates past time and the Present indicate present time51. The insistence of the time-based perspective on verbs and the emphasis of the inter-relationship between aspect and Aktionsart allow Fanning to define the Perfect form as a product of the stative Aktionsart, past time and external aspect. The following figure summarizes Fanning’s model: Aspect external internal Non-Aspectual Tense (perfective) (imperfective) Aorist Past Imperfect Pluperfect [+stative Aktionsart] Perfect Present Present [+stative Aktionsart] Future Future 2.4 Mari B. Olsen (1997) Olsen’s model resembles Fanning’s in quite a lot of ways. As mentioned above, she divides aspect into two categories: grammatical aspect is what comes close to Fanning’s definition of aspect; and lexical aspect, which 48 For detail of the application of the Vendler-Kenny taxonomy, see Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 126-96. 49 Porter and Pitts consider the inter-relational dimension of Fanning’s model is “per- haps the most distinguishing and complex characteristic of his work”. Porter and Pitts, “Recent Researches”, 218. 50 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 323-4, 406-7. Decker found this theory on temporal meaning puzzling. Decker, Temporal Deixis, 20-1. 51 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 198-9 and 240.