Francis G.H. Pang, «Aspect, Aktionsart, and Abduction: Future Tense in the New Testament», Vol. 23 (2010) 129-159
This study examines the treatment of the Future tense among the major contributions in the discussion of verbal aspect in the Greek of the New Testament. It provides a brief comparative summary of the major works in the past fifty years, focusing on the distinction between aspect and Aktionsart on the one hand, and the kind of logical reasoning used by each proposal on the other. It shows that the neutrality of the method is best expressed in an abductive approach and points out the need of clarifying the nature and the role of Aktionsart in aspect studies.
158 Francis G. H. Pang
Such observations are sensible in terms of logic, and indeed general
interpretation of futurity as a mental construct. Yet they are not especially
helpful for analysis of grammatical categories, manifesting a confusion of
what we think of as absolute time with the grammatical category of tense154.
He champions an approach to the problem of the Future from “a
strictly linguistic viewpoint”155. However, he did not elaborate how
this strictly linguistic approach is used. It should also be noted that the
scholars that he argues against are linguists themselves and the discussion
of linguistics, as in many other social sciences, is inevitably connected
with philosophical concepts.
Finally, Evans argues that Porter’s view of non-temporal Future is
theory-driven, i.e. all tense-forms are non-temporal so the Future cannot
be an exception. However, it is an oversimplification of Porter’s argument.
The fact that there exists usages of Future form in non-future context
is overwhelming and begs for an explanation156. Porter’s explanation is
thus driven not by his system but by the data. The fact that there are so
many exceptions to the temporal interpretation shapes his hypothesis of
a non-temporal Future. Abductive reasoning is once again at work here.
Thus, to summarize the discussion on the nature of the Future:
Model Tense Aspect Interpretive
McKay Future [+intention]
Porter None [+expectation]
Fanning Future None [punctiliar/durative]
Olsen Future None [±telic]
Campbell Future Perfective [±ingressive]
4. Conclusion
As demonstrated above, the debate over the aspect of the Future
generally circles around three points: the role of Aktionsart, the neutrality
of the method and the historical development of the form. Whereas
the model of Olsen and Campbell sometimes conflates Aktionsart and
154
Evans, Verbal Syntax, 38.
155
Evans, Verbal Syntax, 38.
156
The claim that Campbell made, that Porter’s theory treat the Future tense as non-
temporal “simply for the purpose of fitting a predetermined theory”, (emphasis mine) and
thus methodologically flawed is similarly unwarranted. Campbell, Verbal Aspect, 153, n.49.