The Greek Verbal Network Viewed from a Probabilistic Standpoint 25 5. Implications of Results of Distributional Analysis There is more that can be said on the basis of these calculations, how- ever. These comments will be divided into two parts. The first part is con- cerned with the findings regarding several individual systems. The second is concerned with more extended patterns of distribution, with particular reference to their implications regarding verbal aspect. a. Individual Systems As a result of the above analysis, several questions regarding certain individual systems should be addressed. The first is the question of how the semantic feature labelling is possibly affected by the distributional pat- terns. This issue appears in several different forms. The first is where one has an equiprobable distribution, but positive and negative terms are uti- lized to indicate the semantic features, such as in system 2, where there is an equiprobable distribution but the terms +perfective and –perfective are used. This labelling would appear to indicate a skewed distribution, since the use of + feature notation may seem to imply markedness. The same question arises for systems 7, 10, and 11. Systems 1 and 3 are skewed in their distribution, yet they have two positive semantic features indicated, such as in system 1 with +expectational and +aspectual. There is also the question of how one labels a system where one cannot clearly establish equiprobable or skewed distribution. These questions of labelling are ones that have been of interest to systemic linguists from the advent of this gra- phic systemic display, since the convention seems to warrant concise and consistent labelling conventions in the light of their use as semantic fea- ture notation for the forms grammaticalized by these features 83. There has been no resolution to the difficulties regarding the labelling of systems, with some systemicists using systemic networks for purely semantic cate- gories, others for formal categories, and others for a combination. The major criticism of networks seems to revolve around instances where the labelling terms are not either formally or implicationally motivated 84. Our network has both formally and implicationally motivated terms, and moves from the broadest to the most delicate semantic features, with the more delicate features implicated by the previous entry conditions of the network, and specific forms that serve as the unique realizations of the semantic features. So long as this double condition is realized, as ours is, 83 Besides the sources mentioned in Porter, Verbal Aspect, pp. 8-11, see Butler, Systemic Linguistics, pp. 40-45; R. Melrose, «Systemic Linguistics and the Communicative Linguistics Syllabus», in Fawcett and Young (eds.), New Developments, II, pp. 78-93. 84 See J.R. Martin, «The Meaning of Features in Systemic Linguistics», in Halliday and Fawcett (eds.), New Developments, I, pp. 14-40; P.W. Davies, Modern Theories of Language (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973), p. 298.