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.