View
24
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Futures in Polish and Slovenian from the perspective of a force-dynamic model. Joanna B ł aszczak and Dorota Klimek-Jankowska. 1. Why this image with a chain?. Present Future. Why this image with a chain?. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
11
Futures in Polish and Slovenian
from the perspective of a force-dynamic model
Joanna Błaszczak and
Dorota Klimek-Jankowska
2
Why this image with a chain?
Present Future
3
Why this image with a chain?
Copley and Harley (2011) represent the relation between present and future by means of causal chains of situations.
In our talk, we will use their model to account for the facts about Polish and Slovenian future forms.
44
The issue Polish has two future forms:
a simple future form, and a periphrastic future form.
55
Two future forms in Polish simple future
(=SF): just a lexical verb,
no auxiliary zje
eat.prs.perf.3sg ( ‘He/she will eat.’)
periphrastic future (=PF)
a combination of the so-called “future auxiliary” BE and an imperfective lexical verb ( in a form of an l-participle or an infinitive)
będzie jadł be.aux.3sg eat.prt.impf.sg.m
będzie jeść be.aux.3sg eat.inf.impf
( ‘He/she will eat.’)
66
Observation The same selectional restriction is observed
in other Slavic languages such as Russian, Czech, Slovak. Russian (Mezhevich 2006:22):
Vasja budet čitat’ knigu.Vasja be.3sg read.inf.impf book‘Vasja will be reading a/the book.’
The auxiliary BE + [impf] verbal complement seems to be a general pattern.
77
BUT: surprise surprise Slovenian:
Unlike in Polish, in Slovenian the l-participle in PF can be both [+impf] and [+perf].
bom napisalbe.aux.prs.3sg write.prt.perf.sg.m
bom pisal
be.aux.prs.3sg write.prt.impf.sg.m
88
Facts: summary Polish
two futures: simple future
SFlexical_verb.prs.perf periphrastic
future PFbe.aux +lexical_verb.prt.impf
orlexical_verb.inf.impf
Slovenian: two futures
periphrastic future PF
be.aux +lexical_verb.prt.perf periphrastic
future PFbe.aux +lexical_verb.prt.imp
f
9
Facts: summary As we have seen, the Polish future
forms are to some extent similar to the Slovenian future forms.
However, they are by no means identical.
1010
Observation Obviously, SF (Pol.) is different
from the Slovenian future forms: SF (Pol.) lexical_verb.prs.perf PF (Slov.) be.aux +
lexical_verb.prt.perf/impf
1111
Observation What about PF (Pol.) be.aux
+lexical_verb.prt.impf and its Slovenian counterpart? There seems to be no obvious difference
between them, as both are composed of BE + an imperfective lexical complement.
BUT: Despite their seemingly similar
morphological make-up, PF (Pol.) and PF (Slov.) are syntactically different.
1212
Syntactically different Evidence:
At first glance it might seem that there is no difference between the Polish PF and the Slovenian PF as negation precedes both bo and będzie.
PolishJan nie będzie pisał.Jan NEG be.aux
write.prt.impf.3sg.m Slovenian
Janez ne bo pisal.Janez NEG be.aux
write.prt.impf.sg.m ‘John will not write.’ (‘John will not be writing.’)
1313
Syntactically different BUT: There is an important syntactic
difference between Polish and Slovenian. First, it is a standard assumption in Slavic
linguistics (Rivero 1991, Borsley and Rivero 1994) that there is a difference in the position of negation between Polish and Slovenian.
NegP > TP > VP Slovenian TP > NegP > VP Polish
Second, bo in Slovenian is a second position clitic (Franks and Holloway King 2000, Migdalski 2010).
1414
Difference between BE in Polish and Slovenian as to its syntactic position: In Slovenian:
BE is higher in the syntactic tree ( in T°) In Polish:
BE is lower in the syntactic tree ( in some kind of light vP-shell or “Aspect Phrase”)
Syntactically different: Our assumptions
1515
Consequences of different syntactic positions The BE-aux in Slovenian is a TP-
related functional element (“higher auxiliary”). Given its high position, it does not
have any influence on the selection of the aspectual form of the l-participle.
It can take both [+impf] and [+perf] verbal complements.
1616
Consequences of different syntactic positions In contrast, będzie in Polish is a VP-
related element (“lower auxiliary”). Given its low position it can directly
select its verbal complement. It is compatible only with [+impf].
In this respect będzie shows a similar behavior to phase verbs like ‘begin’, which also only select [+impf] VP-complements (Veselovska 1995).
1717
Consequences of different syntactic positions In contrast, będzie in Polish is a VP-
related element (“lower auxiliary”). Given its low position it can directly
select its verbal complement. It is compatible only with [+impf].
In this respect będzie shows a similar behavior to phase verbs like ‘begin’, which also only select [+impf] VP-complements (Veselovska 1995).
będzie pisać / * napisać be.aux.3.sg write.inf.impf / * write.inf.perf
‘(s)he will write’ ((s)he will be writing’) imperfective perfective
zacznie pisać / * napisać begin.3.sg write.inf.impf / *
write.inf.perf‘(s)he will begin to write’ imperfective perfective
1818
Question Why is będzie compatible only with
[+impf] verbal complements?
1919
Answer Unlike the Slovenian bo, the Polish
będzie is not completely devoid of the lexical content. It denotes a state BE.
Denoting a state, będzie is compatible only with [+durative] eventualities. Hence only [+impf] VP-complements are
possible.
2020
Prediction Only in Slovenian should it be
possible to use a second BE, spelling out the lower “VP-part” of the tree.
Why? Because the high BE-aux in T0 in
Slovenian is completely devoid of the lexical content.
bo + BE Slovenian będzie + BE Polish
2121
Our prediction is corroborated.
Slovenian (due to Lanko Marušić)
bom bilbe.aux.1.sg be.prt.sg.m
‘I will be.’
Polish *będę był
be.aux.1.sg be.prt.sg.m
*będę być be.aux.1.sg be.inf
(intended: ‘I will be’)bo + BE będzie + BE
2222
Hypothesis Despite the syntactic differences, the
semantic contrasts between BE-aux+l-participle.impf and BE-aux+l-participle.perf in Slovenian have their mirror image in the opposition between the PF and the SF in Polish. Slov. BE-aux+l-participle.impf Pol. PF Slov. BE-aux+l-participle.perf Pol. SF
Slov. BE+[impf] Pol. PFSlov. BE+[perf] Pol. SF
2323
Hypothesis In short:
Slov. BE+[impf] / Pol. PF syntactically different semantically equivalent
Slov. BE+[perf] / Pol. SF syntactically different semantically equivalent
2424
Common knowledge Obvious aspectual differences
between BE+[perf] / SF and BE+[impf] / PF: bounded BE+[perf] / SF vs. unbounded BE+[impf] / PF
2525
Slovenian [bounded] (due to Lanko Marušić, p.c.)
Pismo bom napisal letter be.aux.prs.1sg write.prt.perf.sg.m
v 3 ure /*3 ure. in 3 hours / *3 hours‘I’ll write the letter in three hours.’
Pismo bom pisal letter be.aux.prs.1sg write.prt.imp.sg.m 3 ure / *v 3 ure.3 hours / *in 3 hours‘I’ll write the letter for three hours.’
bounded
unbounded
26
But what is less known is the fact that semantically, the
difference between these forms is more than just aspectual.
2727
New facts Even if there are contexts in which
both SF / BE+[perf] and PF / BE+[impf] are equally good, there are other contexts in which only
one future form, either SF / BE+[perf] or PF / BE+[impf],
is acceptable or at least strongly preferred.
2828
SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] equally good
Contexts: prediction intention
2929
Context: prediction SF and PF are equally
good Scenario:
Look at her face:Basia się zaraz rozpłacze.Basia zaraz będzie płakać.‘Basia is going to / will cry right now.’
3030
SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] are NOT equally good
Contexts: warning offering I can‘t believe (= I am amazed
that ...) questions
3131
Methodology A scenario-based online
questionnaire for Polish
www.ifa.uni.wroc.pl/questionnairePL
for Slovenian www.ifa.uni.wroc.pl/questionnaireSL
3232
“Warning contexts” SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] have
completely different interpretations.
3333
“Warning contexts”: SF/BE+[perf]
Scenario: We see a blind man walking
towards a precipice. We see that he is just about to fall down. So we want to prevent this and warn the man.
Uwaga, spadniesz! (PL) Pazi, padel boš! (SL)
‘Be careful/Watch out: You are going to fall down (otherwise)!’’
warning – the hearer can still do something to prevent falling
3434
“Warning contexts” watch out SF/BE+[perf] ok PF/BE+[impf] not
ok
3535
“Warning contexts”: PF/BE+[impf]
Scenario: You are a parachuting
instructor. Your pupil is just about to jump. You want to signal this.
Uwaga, będziesz spadał! (PL)
Pazi, boš padal! (SL)‘Caution: you are now beginning to fall down.’
announcement – the falling is prearranged
3636
“Warning contexts” announcement PF/BE+[impf] ok SF/BE+[perf] not
ok
3737
“Offering contexts” (Copley 2002, 2009)
SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] have completely different interpretations.
38
“Offering contexts” SF/BE+[perf] Scenario:
If you want, our company will repair your car.
Jeśli chcesz, nasza firma naprawi ci samochód. (PL)
Če želiš, ti bo naše podjetje popravilo avto. (SL)
episodic reading
39
“Offering contexts” PF/BE+[impf] Scenario:
If you want, our company will repair your car.
#Jeśli chcesz, nasza firma będzie ci naprawiać samochód. (PL)
#Če želiš, ti bo naše podjetje popravljalo avto. (SL)
implausible under an episodic reading; a kind of a habitual reading; a longer plan/agreement
40
“Offering contexts” (Copley 2002, 2009)
SF ok PF not ok
Offering entails that the decision as to a future action has not been made yet and the hearer can still decide whether he or she wants the offer to be realized in the future.
PF is not suitable in offering contexts since it presupposes that the future action is prearranged at the moment of speaking and the hearer has no say on the offered issue.
4141
“I can‘t believe” (Copley 2002, 2009)
Two interpretations: literal meaning I can’t believe idiomatic meaning I can’t believe = I am
amazed that… SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] have
completely different interpretations: SF/BE+[perf] only literal meaning, no
idiomatic meaning PF/BE+[impf] literal meaning + idiomatic
meaning
4242
Idiomatic I can‘t believe PF/BE+[impf] Scenario:
Your boss has just asked your colleague John to organize a conference for 200 people. You think this decision is wrong because John is unexperienced and badly-organized. After coming back home you express your amazement to your wife.
Only PF/BE+[impf] can be used in this context.
4343
Idiomatic I can‘t believe PF/BE+[impf] Ciągle jeszcze nie mogę
uwierzyć, że Janek będzie wykonywał tak odpowiedzialne zadanie. (PL)
Ne morem verjeti, da bo Janek opravljal tako odgovorno nalogo. (SL)‘I cannot believe that John will be performing such a responsible task.’
= ‘I am amazed that John will be performing such a responsible task.’
4444
“I can‘t believe” contexts
SF/BE+[perf] only literal meaning, no idiomatic
meaning
Nie chce mi się wierzyć, że Janek wykona tak odpowiedzialne zadanie. (PL)
Ne morem verjeti, da bo Janek opravil tako odgovorno nalogo. (SL)‘I can’t believe (# ‘I am amazed) that John will fulfil/perform such a responsible task.’
4545
Idiomatic I can‘t believe (Copley 2002, 2009)
PF/BE+[impf] ok SF/
BE+[perf] not ok
4646
“Question contexts” SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] have
different interpretations: SF/BE+[perf]: whether =
undetermined, who = undetermined PF/BE+[impf] whether =
determined, who = undetermined
4747
“Question contexts” SF/BE+[perf]
Scenario: Your car has just broken down.
You need help so you ask your older brothers who of them would agree to help you repair the car. It is not predetermined whether any of them would agree to do this. So you actually ask whether a future action is going to take place and who will perform it.
Kto naprawi mi samochód? (PL)
Kdo mi bo popravil avto? (SL)‘Who will repair my car?’
4848
“Question contexts”: who and whether = undetermined
SF/BE+[perf]
4949
“Question contexts” PF/BE+[impf]
Scenario: Your car has broken down. You
take it to a car repair station. They agree to repair your car within a week. You are still curious which mechanic exactly will be repairing your car. In this context the future action is preplanned and you only want to know who will perform it.
Kto będzie mi naprawiał samochód? (PL)
Kdo mi bo popravljal avto? (SL)‘Who will be repairing my car?’
5050
“Question contexts”: whether = determined, who = undetermined PF/BE+
[impf]
5151
Contexts: summary SF and BE +
[perf] okay in: Warning as caution Offering context I can‘t believe
(literal meaning) Questions: whether
= undetermined, who = undetermined
PF and BE + [impf] okay in: Warning as
announcement I can‘t believe = I
am amazed Questions:
whether = determined, who = undetermined
5252
Contexts: summary Conclusion:
PF / BE + [impf] but not SF / BE + [perf] are compatible with contexts in which the future action is settled or preplanned/prearranged at the moment of speaking.
53
Question Why are some
contexts compatible with SF (Pol.) / BE+ [perf] (Slov.)?
And why are some other contexts compatible with PF (Pol.) / BE+[impf] (Slov.)?- warning as caution
- offering- questions (whether + who = undetermined)
- warning as announcement- idiomatic I can‘t believe (= I am amazed that ...)- questions (whether = determined, who = undetermined)
5454
Observation Offering and warning as caution presuppose
that it should be possible to change or to prevent a future eventuality, hence such events cannot be settled or
prearranged at the moment of speaking. In contrast, one can only be amazed by
something which is already settled/prearranged at the moment of
speaking. Likewise, warning as an announcement
presupposes that the future event being announced is preplanned.
55
Proposal We wish to show that a
satisfactory answer to question can be formulated in a framework of force dynamics as recently proposed by Copley and Harley (2010, 2011).
56
A few words about force dynamics First of all, why a force-dynamic model
and not a traditional event-based semantics or a semantics based on the notion of inertia worlds?
As we will see, and as is – by the way – claimed by Copley and Harley, it is more intuitive and therefore it offers a simpler way of accounting for complex facts.
57
A few words about force dynamics Secondly, what is a force? A force can be understood as an
input of energy which can change the initial situation into a different one, as long as no stronger force keeps it
from doing so.
58
E.g., a „battle“ between the force of gravity and the mental forces of the magician
59
A few words about force dynamics
In formal terms, a force is a function from a situation to a situation. Situations are understood as spatio-
temporal arrangements of individuals along with their properties.
If you have an initial situation and a force is applied, and no stronger force intervenes, the final situation results.
More precisely, a force actually stands for a net force, i.e., the sum of all possible forces acting on an object in a given situation.
60
A few words about force dynamics Thirdly, forces form causal chains
of situations.
61
A few words about force dynamics
Fourthly, the traditional distinction between states and events is understood in a force-dynamic model as follows: Eventive vPs are predicates of forces, type
<f,t> (that is, type <<s,s>,t>, since type f is shorthand for type <s,s>); they are represented by Greek letters , , ...
Stative predicates are predicates of situations, type <s,t>.
The intuition is that eventive eventualities involve a force — reflecting an input of energy into a situation — while stative eventualities are simply true of a situation, or not.
62
A few words about force dynamics Fifthly, aspect maps from
predicates of forces to predicates of situations, so it is type <<f,t>, <s,t>>. This assumption is analogous to the
common assumption that aspect maps from event predicates to temporal predicates.
63
A few words about force dynamics
Imperfective aspect takes a predicate of forces (, the denotation of the vP) and a topic situation s0 provided by tense and says that the property holds of the net force of this topic situation. [[imperfective]] = s0. (net(s0))
That is, a force with the property is the net force in the topic situation, and if all else is equal and nothing external interferes, s1 will result.
6464
Imperfective aspect – diagram
Shading indicates the situation whose net force has the property , namely s0, the topic situation.
Broken line indicates situations which are not part of the denotation of the imperfective.
65
A few words about force dynamics Perfective aspect takes a predicate of
forces (, the denotation of the vP) and a topic situation s0 provided by tense and says that the predicate of forces is the net force of s–1. That is, is true of the force that caused s0, the topic situation. [[perfective]] = s0.(net(s-1)) where s-1 is a
situation in the causal chain preceding s0
Perfective aspect signals that the result situation of some force holds as of the topic situation provided by tense.
6666
Perfective aspect – diagram
Shading indicates the situation whose net force has the property , namely s-1, the predecessor of the topic situation s0
6767
Hypothesis We use this model to argue that it is the
length of the causal chain of situations that matters for the question of why some future forms are preferably used in some contexts and why some other future forms are more compatible with some other contexts.
More precisely, the correlation is as follows: The longer the causal chain of situations is, the
more opportunities there are for possible changes or interventions (or more formally, for other forces to creep in).
6868
Expectation Since SF (Pol.) and BE+[perf] (Slov.) are more
preferable in ‘warning’ and ‘offering’ contexts, i.e., in non-prearranged future contexts allowing for changes or interventions,
and since PF (Pol.) and BE+[impf] (Slov.) are more preferable in ‘warning as an announcement’ and idiomatic ‘I can’t believe’ contexts, i.e., in prearranged/preplanned or settled future contexts,
we expect that a causal chain of situations in SF (Pol.) / BE+[perf] (Slov.) is longer than in the case of PF (Pol.) / BE+[impf] (Slov.).
69
In short SF (Pol.) /
BE + [perf] (Slov.)
a longer causalchain of
situations
PF (Pol.) / BE + [impf] (Slov.)
a shorter causalchain of
situations
7070
Question How does the length of the causal chain
of situations follow from the semantics of the respective forms?
How to account for the fact that there is a semantic correspondence between the Polish and Slovenian future forms in spite of the fact that these forms are not identical? SF (Pol.) BE + [perf]
(Slov.)PF (Pol.) BE + [impf] (Slov.)
7171
Our analysis: BE+[perf] (Slov.)
The l-participle is marked as perfective. Perfective aspect signals that the
result situation of some force holds as of the topic situation provided by tense.
Since the Slovenian bo is a TP-related auxiliary, its function is to temporally locate the topic situation right after the speech time. ST s0
7272
BE+[perf] (Slov.): compositionTP [“AspP” +
“vP”]
bo perfective
Topic situation (= s0) The denotation of the vP () after speech situation (= ST) is true of the force that
caused s0, the topic situation.
ST s0
7373
BE+[perf] (Slov.) – a longer chain
73
Topic situation s0
is provided by tense is the situation the speaker is talking about is the result situation of s-1
7474
Our analysis: SF (Pol.) A similar causal chain of situations is
obtained in Polish in the SF form in which there is no TP-related BE-aux.
The SF form is a combination of present tense and perfective aspect.
zjeeat.prs.perf.3sg‘S/he will eat.’
present tense + perfective aspect
75
Our analysis: SF (Pol.) According to Copley and Harley, perfective
aspect signals that the result situation of some force holds as of the topic situation provided by tense.
However, what we have in Polish is present tense, i.e., the topic situation should be true of the situation surrounding the speech time ST s0, contrary to fact: Obviously, the situation you are talking about
(i.e., the topic situation) in SF lies in the future.
7676
Our analysis: SF (Pol.) Where does the future temporal
reference come from? This is due to the semantics of
perfective aspect.
77
Our analysis: SF (Pol.) Following Borik (2002), we assume that
the meaning of perfective aspect is that there cannot be any overlapping between the speech time (ST) and reference time (RT, which corresponds to our topic situation). ST RT =
To fulfill this condition, RT has either to precede or to follow the ST. (i) RT > ST (ii) ST > RT
78
Our analysis: SF (Pol.) The first option (i) RT > ST is excluded
for the simple reason that Polish future forms combine present tense (and not past tense) and perfective aspect.
So the option we are left with is option (ii) ST > RT:
Hence: ST > s0 (given that RT = s0)
7979
SF (Pol.): composition
TP [“AspP” + “vP”]
Moment of speech present perfective locating the topic situation
after the speech timeST s0 --------> ST > s0
808080
SF (Pol.) - a longer chain
Topic situation s0
is provided by perfective aspect is the situation the speaker is talking about is the result situation of s-1
8181
Intermediate conclusion In SF (Pol.) / BE+[perf] (Slov.) the
situation whose net force has the property is s-1, i.e., the situation in the causal chain immediately preceding s0, the topic situation.
In other words, the causal chain of situations is long enough (s-1 + s0) to create opportunities for other forces to creep in.
8282
Hypothesis In contrast, both BE+[impf] in
Slovenian and PF in Polish can be used to express prearranged events.
Hence, we expect that these future forms have shorter causal chains of situations.
8383
Question Why is there a shorter causal chain
of situations in these forms? How can this fact be obtained
compositionally?
8484
Our analysis: BE+[impf] (Slov.)
As in the previous case, the temporal auxiliary bo in Slovenian situates the topic situation right after the speech time. ST s0
The l-participle is marked as imperfective. Imperfective aspect says that the denotation of
the vP () holds of the net force of s0 (i.e., the topic situation provided by tense).
8585
BE+[impf](Slov.): composition
TP [“AspP” + “vP”]
bo imperfectiveTopic situation The denotation of vP () holds of
the netafter speech situation force of the topic situation (s0)
ST s0
868686
BE+[impf] (Slov.) – a shorter chain
Topic situation s0
is provided by tense is the situation the speaker is talking about
8787
Our analysis: PF (Pol.) A similar situation arises in the Polish
PF form despite its different syntactic make-up.
Recall: PF = będzie + [impf]-complement
What is będzie?
8888
Assumptions wrt będzie Morphologically and diachronically,
będzie is a perfective present tense form of BE (van Schooneveld 1951).
BE= present tense + perfective
8989
Assumptions wrt będzie Unlike the Slovenian bo, the Polish
będzie is not completely devoid of the lexical content: It denotes a state BE, more precisely,
a Kimian state. That is, it does not have an event
argument, hence the perfective aspect cannot operate on it.
9090
Our analysis: PF (Pol.) Decomposing periphrastic future:
będzie + jadł /jeść be.prs.perf.3sg +
eat.prt.impf.sg.m/eat.inf.impf
Combination of: BE= present tense + perfective+ l-participle/infinitive = imperfective
9191
Our analysis: PF (Pol.) The combination of present tense
and perfective aspect in będzie temporally locates the topic situation (s0) after the speech situation.
The state BE introduced by będzie predicates over the topic situation (s0).
9292
Our analysis: PF (Pol.) Okay, but what is the topic
situation? The topic situation is the situation the
speaker is talking about. In the case of PF (Pol.) this is the
state BE + the denotation of vP ().
9393
Our analysis: PF (Pol.) The lexical complement of będzie is
marked as imperfective. However, this does not contribute
anything new to what we have already said about PF (Pol.).
Why? This is so because imperfective aspect says
that the denotation of the vP () holds of the net force of the topic situation (s0).
And the state BE introduced by będzie, as stated before, is also true of the topic situation (s0).
9494
PF (Pol.): composition TP [“AspP” + “vP”]
będzieMoment of speech present perfective
forward-shifting of the topic situations0 ST ------> ST > s0
lexical [+durative] complement
state BE of state BE [imperfective] morphology
The state introduced by będzie + vP hold of the topic situation (s0).
959595
PF (Pol.) – a shorter chain
Topic situation s0
is provided by perfective aspect is the situation the speaker is talking about is the situation of which the state BE +
the property denoted by vP hold
9696
Intermediate conclusion In PF (Pol.) / BE+[impf] (Slov.) the
situation whose net force has the property is s0 (the topic situation), and not s-1.
In other words, the causal chain of situations is short, hence not long enough to create opportunities for other forces to creep in.
This fact explains why these forms are preferably used for preplanned/prearranged/settled future eventualities.
9797
Intermediate conclusion Why?
Whenever a speaker wants to express a preplanned/prearranged future eventuality, he or she will choose a form which more faithfully expresses his or her desire for this future eventuality to be realized.
As there is no intermediate situation (s-1) in the denotation of PF (Pol.) / BE+[impf] (Slov.), the topic situation will (normally) immediately follow the speech situation and thus be a natural continuation of prearrangements or plans.
9898
Prediction If our analysis is correct, then only
those future forms in Polish and in Slovenian in which there is no intermediate situation (s-1) between the speech situation and the topic situation, i.e., only the PF in Polish and only the BE-aux+l-participle.impf in Slovenian, should be compatible with a ‘still’ context.
99
In short PF (Pol.) /
BE + [impf] (Slov.)
in ‘still’-contexts
SF (Pol.) / BE + [perf] (Slov.)
in ‘still’-contexts
100100
Our prediction is borne out. PF ok Janek czyta gazetę i nadal
będzie ją czytał.‘John is reading a newspaper and he will still be reading it.’
SF not ok *Janek czyta gazetę i nadal
ją przeczyta.‘*John is reading a newspaper and he will still have read it.’
101101
Our prediction is borne out. BE + [impf] ok Jan bere knjigo. On
bo še vedno bral knjigo.‘John is reading a newspaper and he will still be reading it.’
BE + [perf] not ok
Jan bere knjigo. *On bo še vedno prebral knjigo. ‘*John is reading a newspaper and he will still have read it.’
102102
Final conclusion There are two future forms in Polish
and Slovenian. Despite syntactic differences, we
observe a semantic equivalence: Slov. BE-aux+l-participle.impf Pol.
PF Slov. BE-aux+l-participle.perf Pol.
SF
103103
Final conclusion
In PF/BE+[impf] there is a shorter causal chain of situations. In the denotation of these forms there is no
intermediate situation (s-1) between the speech situation and the topic situation.
Hence PF/BE+[impf] is more compatible with the contexts in which the future event is already settled/determined at the moment of speaking.
104104
Final conclusion
In SF/BE+[perf] there is a longer causal chain of situations. In the denotation of these forms there is an
intermediate situation (s-1) between the speech situation and the topic situation.
Hence SF/BE+[perf] is more compatible with contexts in which future eventualities are not realisations of prearrangements or plans. There are opportunities for changes or
interventions.
105
Final conclusion PLAN is not presupposed by PF/BE+
[impf]. That is, PLAN is not part of the semantics
of these forms. What we want to say is that the
semantics of these forms makes them more compatible in contexts expressing preplanned future eventualities.
106106
Thank you!
107107
References Borik, O. (2002). Aspect and Reference Time.
Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht University. Borsley, R. D. and M.-L. Rivero. (1994). Clitic
Auxiliaries and Incorporation in Polish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12, pp. 373-422.
Copley, B. (2002). The Semantics of the Future. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. To appear in Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics, Routledge.
Copley, B. (2009). The Semantics of the Future. Routledge, New York.
108108
References Copley, B. (2011). Causal Chains for Futures and
Futurates. To appear in Kissine, M., P. De Brabanter, and S. Sharifzadeh, eds., Proceedings of the SLE Workshop "Future Tense(s) / Future Time(s)".
Copley, B. and H. Harley (2010). An Ontology for a Force-Dynamic Treatment of Events. To appear in Copley, B. and F. Martin, eds. Papers from the First Conference on Forces in Grammatical Structures.
Copley, B. and H. Harley (2011). Force Dynamics for Event Semantics: Reifying Causation in Event Structure. Ms.
109109
References Franks, S. and T. Holloway King. (2000). A
Handbook of Slavic Clitics. Oxford University Press, New York.
Mezhevich, I. (2006). Featuring Russian Tense: A Feature-Theoretic Account of the Russian Tense System. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Calgary.
Mezhevich, I. (2008). A Feature-Theoretic Account of Tense and Aspect in Russian. Natural Laguage and Linguistic Theory 26, 359-401.
Migdalski, K. (2010). On the Loss of Tense and Verb-Adjacent Clitics in Slavic. Paper presented at the DiGS XII, Cambridge University, July 14-16, 2010.
110110
References Rivero, M.-L. (1991). Long Head Movement and
Negation: Serbo-Croatian vs. Slovak and Czech. The Linguistic Review 8, pp. 319-351.
Schooneveld, van C.H. (1951). The Aspect System of the Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian verbum finitum byti. Word 7/2, pp. 96-103.
Veselovska, L. 1995. Phrasal Movement and X0-Morphology. Word Order Parallels in Czech and English Nominal and Verbal Projections. Ph. D. Thesis, Palacky University Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Whaley, M. L. (2000). The Evolution of the Slavic ‘BE(COME)’-Type Compound Future. Ph.D. Dissertation, The Ohio State University.
111111
This research has been supported by the Foundation for Polish Science
(Fundacja na rzecz Nauki Polskiej), programme FOCUS.
Recommended