146 Francis G. H. Pang going through several of these “neglected verbs” as found in the selected corpora, barring a few apparent contradictions, he concludes that most of the Future instances of the selected verbs create an ingressive Aktionsart, “focusing on the beginning of an action or the entrance into a state”, and concludes that the Future form semantically encodes perfective aspect93. However, Campbell’s handling of exceptions merits particular attention. Although most instances of the verbs he chooses are shown to be without any serious problem, i.e. most examples he cites are possible to read as perfective, his handling of the Future of γίνομαι in John 10:16 seems to go against his own inductive assumption. As mentioned above, he explicitly argues that his method is inductive in nature and particularly guards against the practice of using particular translations to argue for certain assumed theory94. However, in dealing with the phrase καὶ γενήσονται μία ποίμνη, εἷς ποιμήν from John 10:16, although he admits that this phrase clearly expresses a stative Aktionsart instead of ingressive, he attributes this problem to be a matter of translation, citing his own ingressive reading against the NASB translation he used throughout his work95. Thus he apparently violates his own methodological assumption. Therefore, at first glance O’Brien and Campbell’s works seem to be exercising a bottom-up approach in a manner similar to what is called a reverse engineering procedure, reconstructing the thematic schema from mining the pattern of the data. However, as demonstrated above, their approach relies heavily on the premise that there is a discernable and reliable pattern between aspect and Aktionsart, which itself is nothing more than an unproven assertion. Viewing it under these lights, Campbell’s method is more to the deductive end of the spectrum than being inductive as he wanted it to be. However, it is equally unfair to conclude that Campbell’s approach is deductive in nature. Instead of the exact opposite of what he claims to be, the essence of his methodology is closer to what is called abductive logical reasoning. While he is not as theory-neutral as he wanted to be, and in fact it is doubtful that there exists a pure theory-neutral method, his approach seems to slightly reflect a process of refinement between the data and the hypothesis. Formally, the notion of abduction or abductive reasoning originated from American philosopher Charles S. Peirce96. He defined abduction 93 See his analysis, Campbell, Verbal Aspect, 144-51, here 145. 94 He uses the aspect of the Perfect as an example, claiming that when stative aspect is assumed instead of proved to be expressed by the Perfect form, if one “cite[s] several exam- ples of how to translate the perfect statively, and while this may or may not be accurate, it amounts to little more than eisegesis”. Campbell, Verbal Aspect, 29-30. 95 Campbell, Verbal Aspect, 145-6. 96 Charles S. Peirce, “Pragmatism and Pragmaticism”, Collected Papers of Charles Sand- ers Peirce, Vol.5. (eds. C. Hartshorne - P. Weiss) (Cambridge, MA 1965) 99-107. Walton