The temporal/aspectual systems of most Slavic languages have the peculiar feature of allowing, for restricted sets of verbs and in contextually salient environments, a ‘reverse’ temporal interpretation, i.e. a past-inflected verb (nota bene: in matrix clauses, not in subordinate ones because of a Sequence-of-Tense rule) can be interpreted as having future reference, and vice-versa. Typical examples of future-oriented readings of past tense forms include Russian expressions like 'poexali' (lit. ‘[we] went/left’ but interpreted as ‘let’s go’ or ‘we are going’) and the so-called ‘future aorist’ in Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian and in Macedonian. Conversely, in Russian and Polish – and arguably also in other Slavic languages – a future-marked form (the perfective present) can get a past reading when the setting is clearly situated before the speech time. Although the conditions that are required to allow such ‘reverse’ interpretations of Tense are different across the Slavic languages and are generally far from clear, the trigger for the reversal unquestionably lies in pragmatics and in the discourse environment. On these bases this paper will offer a very preliminary analysis of tense morphology in Slavic and it will be argued that, in neo-Reichenbachian terms, it only partially contributes to the relation between the E(vent) time and the R(eference) time, whereas the relation between R and the S(peech) time is essentially introduced in morphosyntax as a free variable that gets bound later, in dependance to discourse and pragmatics.
Il sistema tempo-aspettuale della maggior parte delle lingue slave ha la peculiarità di permettere, per un limitato insieme di verbi, una interpretazione temporale ‘invertita’ per cui un verbo flesso al passato può essere interpretato con riferimento futuro e viceversa (nota bene: nella frase matrice, non nella frase incassata per effetto di una regola di consecutio temporum). Esempi tipici di forme verbali di passato con lettura orientata al futuro sono le espressioni del russo del tipo ‘poexali’ (lett. ‘(ce ne) [siamo] andati’ interpretato come ‘(ce ne) andiamo/stiamo andando/andremo’) e il cosiddetto ‘aoristo futuro’ in serbo/croato/bosniaco e in macedone. In modo speculare, una forma marcata al futuro, in russo e in polacco (e probabilmente anche in altre lingue slave), può acquisire una lettura passata se la collocazione temporale del contesto è palesemente anteriore al momento dell’enunciazione. Per quanto le condizioni che consentono tali interpretazioni ‘invertite’ siano ancora poco comprese e differiscano tra una lingua slava e l’altra, è indubbio che l’inversione si attivi al livello della pragmatica e del discorso. Con tali premesse, in questo contributo viene offerta una analisi preliminare della morfologia di Tempo nelle lingue slave, ipotizzando che quest’ultima contribuisca solo parzialmente alla relazione – in termini neo-reichenbachiani – tra E (il tempo dell’evento) e R (il tempo di riferimento), mentre la relazione tra R e S (tempo dell’enunciazione) verrebbe essenzialmente introdotta nella morfosintassi come una variabile libera, che sarebbe poi legata successivamente in dipendenza da fattori pragmatici e discorsuali.
Reverse temporal interpretations in Slavic: Towards an analysis
Antonio Civardi
2024-01-01
Abstract
The temporal/aspectual systems of most Slavic languages have the peculiar feature of allowing, for restricted sets of verbs and in contextually salient environments, a ‘reverse’ temporal interpretation, i.e. a past-inflected verb (nota bene: in matrix clauses, not in subordinate ones because of a Sequence-of-Tense rule) can be interpreted as having future reference, and vice-versa. Typical examples of future-oriented readings of past tense forms include Russian expressions like 'poexali' (lit. ‘[we] went/left’ but interpreted as ‘let’s go’ or ‘we are going’) and the so-called ‘future aorist’ in Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian and in Macedonian. Conversely, in Russian and Polish – and arguably also in other Slavic languages – a future-marked form (the perfective present) can get a past reading when the setting is clearly situated before the speech time. Although the conditions that are required to allow such ‘reverse’ interpretations of Tense are different across the Slavic languages and are generally far from clear, the trigger for the reversal unquestionably lies in pragmatics and in the discourse environment. On these bases this paper will offer a very preliminary analysis of tense morphology in Slavic and it will be argued that, in neo-Reichenbachian terms, it only partially contributes to the relation between the E(vent) time and the R(eference) time, whereas the relation between R and the S(peech) time is essentially introduced in morphosyntax as a free variable that gets bound later, in dependance to discourse and pragmatics.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.