1 / 101

Futures in Polish and Slovenian: “a hole in a sock” theory

Futures in Polish and Slovenian: “a hole in a sock” theory. Joanna B ł aszczak and Dorota Klimek-Jankowska. Outline. The issue Facts, observations Hypothesis New observations Our analysis Final conclusions. The issue. Polish has two future forms: a simple future form, and

kaelem
Download Presentation

Futures in Polish and Slovenian: “a hole in a sock” theory

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Futures in Polish and Slovenian: “a hole in a sock” theory Joanna Błaszczak and Dorota Klimek-Jankowska

  2. Outline • The issue • Facts, observations • Hypothesis • New observations • Our analysis • Final conclusions

  3. The issue • Polish has two future forms: • a simple future form, and • a periphrastic future form.

  4. 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 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.’) Two future forms in Polish

  5. 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.

  6. BUT: surprise surprise • Slovenian: • Unlike in Polish, in Slovenian the l-participle in PF can be both [+impf] and [+perf]. bom napisal be.aux.prs.3sg write.prt.perf.sg.m bom pisal be.aux.prs.3sg write.prt.impf.sg.m

  7. Polish two futures: simple future SF lexical_verb.prs.perf periphrastic future PF be.aux + lexical_verb.prt.impfor lexical_verb.inf.impf Slovenian: two futures periphrastic future PF be.aux + lexical_verb.prt.perf periphrastic future PF be.aux + lexical_verb.prt.impf Facts: summary

  8. Question • Can we expect any correspondence between the Polish and the Slovenian future forms? • If so, what would the nature of this correspondence be and how could it be accounted for?

  9. A first intuitive answer • At first glance, it seems that there are no clear correspondences between those forms. • Why?

  10. Observation • The PF forms in Polish and Slovenian have a similar morphological make-up. • BUT: They are different both diachronically and syntactically.

  11. Diachronically different • Evidence (following Whaley 2000): • The Slovenian bo+l-participle.impf/perf stems from the Old Slavic Future Perfect. • In contrast, the participial future in Polish is an innovative construction.  rarely attested in the earliest Polish texts • The original future form in Polish was (and it is still preserved) the infinitival BE-future. • Recall: będzie jeść be.aux.3sg eat.inf.impf (»‘He/she will eat.’)

  12. 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. • Polish Jan 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.’)

  13. 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&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&Holloway King 2000, Migdalski 2010).

  14. Syntactically different: Our assumptions • 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 light vP-shell)

  15. 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.

  16. 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

  17. Question • Why is będzie compatible only with [+impf] verbal complements?

  18. Answer • Unlike the Slovenian bo, the Polish będzie is not completely devoid of a lexical content  • It denotes a state BE. • Denoting a state, będzie is compatible only with [+durative] eventualities.  • Hence only [+impf] VP-complements are possible.

  19. Prediction • Only in Slovenian it should 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 a lexical content. • bo + BE Slovenian  • będzie + BE Polish 

  20. Slovenian (due to Lanko Marušić) bom bil be.aux.1.sg be.prt.sg.m ‘I will be.’ Polish *będę byłbe.aux.1.sg be.prt.sg.m *będę być be.aux.1.sg be.inf (intended: ‘I will be’) Our prediction is corroborated. będzie + BE bo + BE 

  21. Slov. BE+[impf] Pol. PF • Slov. BE+[perf] Pol. SF Hypothesis • Despite the above mentioned 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

  22. Hypothesis • In short: • Slov. BE+[impf]/ Pol. PF • syntactically different • semantically equivalent • Slov. BE+[perf]/ Pol. SF • syntactically different • semantically equivalent

  23. Common knowledge • Obvious aspectual differences between BE+[perf]/SF andBE+[impf]/PF: • bounded BE+[perf]/SF vs. • unbounded BE+[impf]/PF

  24. Slovenian: Observation • [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

  25. Simple future: O 5:00 wzejdzie słońce. (≈ ‘The sun will rise at 5 a.m.’) Periphrastic future: O 5:00 będzie wschodziło/ będzie wschodzić słońce. (≈ ‘The sun will rise at 5 a.m.’) Polish: Observation

  26. Simple future • O 5:00 wzejdzie słońce. ≈ ‘The sun will have risen at 5 a.m.’ • O 5:00 wzejdzie jużsłońce. ≈ ‘The sun will already have risen at 5 a.m.’

  27. Periphrastic future • O 5:00 będziejużwschodziłosłońce.  ‘The sun will already have risen at 5 a.m.’ (≈ ‘It is already at 5 a.m. that the sun will be rising.’) • O 5:00 będzie wschodziło słońce. ≈ ‘The sun will be rising at 5 a.m.’

  28. 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.

  29. SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] equally good • Contexts: • prediction • intention

  30. 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.’ Context: prediction

  31. SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] areNOT equally good • Contexts: • warning • offering • I can‘t believe (= I am amazed that ...) • questions

  32. Methodology • A scenario-based online questionnaire • for Polish • www.ifa.uni.wroc.pl/questionnairePL • for Slovenian • www.ifa.uni.wroc.pl/questionnaireSL

  33. “Warning contexts” • SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf]have completely different interpretations.

  34. “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

  35. “Warning contexts”watch out • SF/BE+[perf] ok • PF/BE+[impf] not ok

  36. “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

  37. “Warning contexts”announcement • PF/BE+[impf]ok • SF/BE+[perf] not ok

  38. “Offering contexts”(Copley 2002, 2009) SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf]have completely different interpretations. 39

  39. “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

  40. “Offering contexts”PF/BE+[impf] • Scenario: • If you want, our company will repair your car. • #Jeśli chcesz, nasza firma będzie ci naprawiaćsamochód. (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

  41. “Offering contexts” (Copley 2002, 2009) SF/ BE+[perf]ok PF/ BE+[impf] 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/BE+[impf] 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. 42

  42. “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

  43. Idiomatic I can‘t believePF/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.

  44. Ciągle jeszcze nie mogę uwierzyć, że Janek będziewykonywałtak odpowiedzialne zadanie. (PL) Ne morem verjeti, da bo Janekopravljal 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.’ Idiomatic I can‘t believePF/BE+[impf]

  45. “I can‘t believe” contextsSF/BE+[perf] •  only literal meaning, no idiomatic meaning • Nie chce mi się wierzyć, że Janek wykona tak odpowiedzialnezadanie.(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.’

  46. Idiomatic I can‘t believe (Copley 2002, 2009) • PF/ BE+[impf]ok • SF/ BE+[perf]not ok

  47. “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 48

  48. “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?’ 49

  49. “Question contexts”: who and whether = undetermined SF/BE+[perf] 50

  50. “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?’ 51

More Related