148 Francis G. H. Pang implicature, the usage of a Future verb that expresses certain Aktionsart which reflects perfective understanding of the verb does not mean that the tense-form itself grammaticalizes such aspect. Thus the seemingly definite correlation between certain aspect and Aktionsart, the basis of many of these models, is coincidental rather than axiomatic. All that can be said is that there are some instances when a certain verb is used with other contextual factors that express certain Aktionsart, the verbal complex in its entirety, not the tense-form per se, will also expresses such Aktionsart. Thus, failure to maintain a clear distinction between the function and the nature of aspect and Aktionsart inevitably leads to a misreading of the aspect of the Future. However, Campbell is not the only scholar who tries to determine the semantic feature of the Future by examining the relationship and interaction between aspect and Aktionsart. Using different terminologies, Mari Olsen talks about how Aktionsart contributes to the understanding of the aspect of the Future in her works. However, her model, which is to some extent also based on Fanning’s premise, came up with contrasting conclusions even following what is apparently the same line of argument. 3.2 Non-Aspectual or Aspectual Unmarked Olsen ties grammatical aspect with Aktionsart but instead of reading ingressive expression from the Future instances, like Fanning, her analysis focuses on the lexical telicity104. Recall that Olsen endorses a privative opposition of lexical aspect (Aktionsart) in her model, i.e. a verb that is unspecified in lexical aspect may be marked with semantic features but the opposite is not possible. In another words, the positive member of the lexical aspect is an uncancelable semantic feature, whereas its opposite is not part of the semantic representation of lexical aspect105. Thus for example, the lexical aspect of the verbs that are not marked with [+telic] may be interpreted as either telic or atelic depending on context106. Under this line of argument, Olsen argues the Future is an aspectually unmarked form since it has “the range of interpretations associated with unmarked members of privative oppositions”107. The grammatical aspect of the Future may be interpreted as either imperfective or perfective, depending 104 Olsen, Lexical and Grammatical Aspect, 260-3. 105 Olsen, Lexical and Grammatical Aspect, 31-5. 106 The same can be said of for the other two lexical aspectual feature, [+dynamic] and [+durative]. Olsen, Lexical and Grammatical Aspect, 31. 107 Olsen, Lexical and Grammatical Aspect, 260.