You are on page 1of 57

Indo-European future tenses

:

Grammaticalization and Multifunctionality
Riccardo Giomi

University of Lisbon

ILTEC Instituto de Linguística Teórica e Computacional – Lisbon

PhD PROJECT Grammatical Expressions of Future Time Reference in Indo-European Languages
• Main goal:
developing a comprehensive account of grammaticalization within the framework of FDG a) explaining and representing grammatical change at the four Levels;

b) explaining and representing the interaction of grammatical, contextual and cognitive factors in which new functions of grammaticalizing elements originate and become conventionalized (see Traugott 1982, Traugott and König 1991, Heine 2002 a.o.).

2

PhD PROJECT Grammatical Expressions of Future Time Reference in Indo-European Languages
• “panchronic perspective” (Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer (1991: 248–259): focus on a) historical evolution of grammatical expressions; their usage in single synchronic stages of the language.
3

b)

Why future markers?
• several different evolutionary patterns involving a wide range of representational and interpersonal categories (although some unified accounts have been proposed);
• high multifunctionality:
“*a+ central issue in the controversy about the theoretical status of future grams concerns the distribution of labour between temporal, modal, and aspectual elements in their meanings and whether to subsume them under the traditional categories of tense, mood/modality or aspect.” Dahl (1999: 313)
4

Today’s talk
Section 1: Theoretical background
A “dual” approach, combining FDG and Semantic Maps;

Section 2: Diachronic evolution
of future markers in Romance, Germanic, Slavic and Greek (focus on IL and RL only);

Section 3: Synchronic multifunctionality
of the Romance inflectional future.
5

Theoretical background • Grammaticalization Theory 1. “there will be scope increase over time along the following scale: situational concept > state-of-affairs > episode > > propositional content” (Hengeveld 2011: 583) 6 . Unidirectionality Content change in F(D)G “Diachronic developments in the field of operators tend to follow the direction π1 > π2 > π3 > π4.” (Hengeveld 1989: 142) For TMA categories.1.

Theoretical background • F(D)G and grammaticalization (Hengeveld 1989. Boland 2006. elaborated formalism (ability to capture semantic and pragmatic oppositions in a structured way) > powerful tool for testing hypotheses about directionality (1). 2011. Souza 2009 a. 7 .) + layered structure.1.o. Olbertz 1993.

. pragmatic inferencing. Usage-based approach “[.” (Heine 2002: 587) 8 .. Key notions relating to this [context] model are context-induced reinterpretation..] grammaticalization (i) requires appropriate contexts to take place. Traugott and König 1991.]. Theoretical background 2.] (cf.. conversational implicature.1. see also Dahl 1985: 11).. metonymy [.. (ii) subsequently leads to an increase in contexts where the grammaticalized item is used [. invited inference.

Olbertz 1993. elaborated formalism (ability to capture semantic and pragmatic oppositions in a structured way) > powerful tool for testing hypotheses about directionality (1).o. Boland 2006. Souza 2009 a. + interaction of Grammatical.1. Theoretical background • F(D)G and grammaticalization (Hengeveld 1989.) + layered structure. 9 . 2011. Contextual and Conceptual Components > explaining pragmatic inferencing / context-induced reinterpretation (2).

be reinterpreted as (part of) the grammatical meaning of the marker (see Traugott & Dasher 2002 a. Synchronic multifunctionality New meanings arise as inferences in specific contexts. Theoretical background 3. new grammatical meanings can give rise to further developments before older meanings have bleached out.1.e. 10 . i.).o. some inferences may become semanticized.

Theoretical background • F(D)G and grammaticalization (Hengeveld 1989. – no explicit account of multifunctionality (3). Boland 2006. elaborated formalism (ability to capture semantic and pragmatic oppositions in a structured way) > powerful tool for testing hypotheses about directionality (1).1.) + layered structure. 2011. 11 . + interaction of Grammatical.o. Souza 2009 a. Contextual and Conceptual Components > explaining pragmatic inferencing / contextinduced reinterpretation (2). Olbertz 1993.

o.+.” (Narrog & Van der Auwera 2011: 320) • Semantic maps crucially rely on cross-linguistic comparison *.1.) • “Semantic maps are a way to visualize regular relationships between two or more meanings or grammatical functions of one and the same linguistic form.” (Haspelmath 2003: 213) 12 . Haspelmath 1997. 2003 a.. Van der Auwera & Plungian 1998. 1986. Theoretical background • Semantic Maps (Anderson 1982..

Diachronic [claim]: A linguistic form may extend its range of functions on the map in any direction. Theoretical background predicative possessor external possessor direction purpose recipient experiencer beneficiary judicantis Figure 1: A semantic map of typical dative functions (Haspelmath 2003: 234) “Synchronic [claim]: Polysemous forms cover adjacent nodes (i.” (Haspelmath 2004: 24) 13 .1.e. but not against the direction of an arrow. nodes linked by a line or arrow).

Theoretical background • Semantic Maps and grammaticalization + capture directionality (1). represented by arrows. 14 . + provide an explicit account of multifunctionality (3).1. represented by lines/arrows. – lack integration within a “wider theory of verbal interaction” (H&M 2008: 1) > do not account for pragmatic inferencing / context-induced reinterpretation (2).

„want‟ † intention (π1) future (π2) prediction/inference (π3) Figure 2: Developmental path of will (Boland 2006: 162). A “dual” approach • Semantic maps can also be construed by integrating the patterns of development followed by individual grammatical markers (cf. since they reflect general grammatical hierarchy (also observable synchronically). Van der Auwera & Plungian 1998). 15 . • Paths of development expressed in F(D)G terms are more informative than traditional ones.1.

“wish”: Romance. Slavic. • “start. • movement verbs (“go”. seize”: Slavic. Germanic. Greek. 16 . • “owe”: Germanic. Germanic. • “want”. Greek. Slavic. Slavic.2. • “become”: Germanic. Main lexical sources for Indo-European future tenses • “have”: Romance. begin”: Slavic. “come”): Romance. • “take.

chanterai. IT. cantaré.2. FR. canterò 17 . SP. Paths of development of Indo-European future tenses posteriority (π e) future (π ep) obligation (π fc) “have” LATIN: INFINITIVE + habere > PORT. cantarei.

2. Paths of development of Indo-European future tenses (?) posteriority (π e) future (π ep) obligation (π fc) “owe” DUTCH: sullen > zullen + INF OLD NORSE: skulu + INF > SWEDISH: ska/skulle + INF 18 .

Paths of development of Indo-European future tenses posteriority (π e) future (π ep) obligation (π fc) intention (π fc) “owe” ENGLISH: sculan + INF > shall/should V 19 .2.

2. Paths of development of Indo-European future tenses posteriority (π e) future (π ep) obligation (π fc) intention (π fc) “want” ANCIENT GREEK: θέλω + να + SUBJ > θε να + SUBJ > GREEK: θα+ SUBJ 20 .

Paths of development of Indo-European future tenses posteriority (π e) future (π ep) obligation (π fc) intention (π fc) “want. wish” OLD ENGLISH: willan + INF > ENGLISH: will/would V OCS: xotetĭ + INF > xotetĭ (+ да) + SUBJ > BULGARIAN: šte + SUBJ 21 .2.

Paths of development of Indo-European future tenses posteriority (π e) future (π ep) obligation (π fc) intention (π fc) prospective aspect (π fc) “go” ENGLISH: be going to V DUTCH: gaan + INF 22 .2.

2. Paths of development of Indo-European future tenses ANCIENT > LATE MEDIEVAL GREEK: ἔχω / εἵχον + INF “have” ability (π fc) root-possibility (π e) posteriority (π e) future (π ep) obligation (π fc) intention (π fc) prospective aspect (π fc) 23 .

2. Paths of development of Indo-European future tenses GERMAN: werden + INF “turn” > “become” ability (π fc) inceptive aspect (π fc) root-possibility (π e) (?) posteriority (π e) future (π ep) obligation (π fc) intention (π fc) prospective aspect (π fc) 24 .

Paths of development of Indo-European future tenses SWEDISH: kommer (att) + INF “come” ability (π fc) inceptive aspect (π fc) root-possibility (π e) posteriority (π e) obligation (π fc) future (π ep) intention (π fc) prospective aspect (π fc) 25 .2.

seize” ability (π fc) inceptive aspect (π fc) root-possibility (π e) posteriority (π e) future (π ep) obligation (π fc) intention (π fc) prospective aspect (π fc) 26 . WEST SLAVIC: budu + INF OCS: na-/po-/u-čno + INF > EAST SLAVIC DIALECTS: -čno + INF OLD RUSSIAN: INF + jimu > UKRANIAN: govoriti-mu (‘I will speak’) “become”.2. begin”. “start. Paths of development of Indo-European future tenses OCS: bǫdo + INF > EAST SLAVIC. “take.

“start. begin”. “become”. “have” 27 . “take” ability (π fc) inceptive aspect (π fc) posteriority (π e) future (π ep) root-possibility (π e) obligation (π fc) intention (π fc) “want. “intend to”.2. From lexical meaning to Future “have” “come”. “go” prospective aspect (π fc) “owe”. wish”.

2. begin”.modality/ inference (π p) obligation (π intention (π fc) prospective aspect (π fc) “owe”. “start. “have” “want. To Future and beyond “have” “come”. “become”. “intend to”. “go” 28 . “take” ability (π fc) inceptive aspect (π fc) posteriority (π e) fc) imperative (F: IMP (F)) mitigation (Π F) concession (A)Φ reportative evidentiality (Π C) root-possibility (π e) future (π ep) epist. wish”.

Content change involving non-adjacent layers inceptive aspect (π fc) ability (π fc) root-possibility (π e) posteriority (π e) future (π ep) obligation (π fc) intention (π fc) prospective aspect (π fc) 29 .2.

2. Content change without increase in scope ANCIENT > LATE MEDIEVAL GREEK: ἔχω / εἵχον + INF “have” ability (π fc) root-possibility (π e) inceptive aspect (π fc) posteriority (π e) future (π ep) intention (π fc) prospective aspect (π fc) 30 obligation (π fc) .

2. Content change without increase in scope ability (π fc) inceptive aspect (π fc) posteriority (π e) future (π ep) root-possibility (π e) obligation (π fc) intention (π fc) prospective aspect (π fc) “owe” ENGLISH: sculan + INF > shall/should V 31 .

2. Content change without increase in scope ability (π fc) inceptive aspect (π fc) posteriority (π e) future (π ep) root-possibility (π e) obligation (π fc) intention (π fc) prospective aspect (π fc) “go” ENGLISH: be going to V DUTCH: gaan + INF 32 .

33 . b) when one single semantic change is considered. Boland 2006: 193).2. Paths of development of Indo-European future tenses Conclusion 1 (or rather Hypothesis 1) The evolution of the future markers considered here generally confirms Hengeveld’s (1989. but also suggests that this might need be “relaxed” in that a) scope widening does not always involve adjacent layers (cf. there need not be widening in scope. 2011) “scope increase” hypothesis.

cantaré. Multifunctionality of the Romance synthetic future imperative (F: IMP (F)) mitigation (Π F) ability (π fc) root-possibility (π e) inceptive aspect (π fc) posteriority (π e) intention (π fc) future (π ep) epistemic modality (π p) concession (A)Φ Portuguese: reportative evidentiality (Π C) obligation (π fc) prospective aspect (π fc) PORT. canterò. SP. cantarei. FR.3. chanterai. IT. 34 .

it may be used in new contexts Target meaning only (Heine 2002: 86) 35 . Heine (2002): relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization Stage I Initial stage II Bridging context Context Unconstrained There is a specific context giving rise to an inference in favor of a new meaning There is a new context which is incompatible with the source meaning Resulting meaning Source meaning Target meaning foregrounded Source meaning backgrounded III Switch context IV Conventionalization The target meaning no longer needs to be supported by the context that gave rise to it.3.

3. Grammaticalization and grammaticality in FDG • Question: At which point of the grammaticalization process should a form/construction be represented as a grammatical marker in FDG? 36 .

give rise to conventional grammatical meanings. [. an interpretation in terms of the source meaning cannot be ruled out.] d. rather than the source meaning.3. b. “They trigger an inferential mechanism to the effect that. there is another meaning. Bridging contexts (new meaning foregrounded): a.” (Heine 2002: 84-85) 37 . Heine (2002): relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization II... but need not. While the target meaning is the one most likely to be inferred. the target meaning. that is. that offers a more plausible interpretation of the utterance concerned. Bridging contexts may. it is still cancellable (see Grice 1967).

Bridging contexts The target meaning is the most likely to be inferred.” not write. (1) Future (π ep) > Intention “Não escreverei o poema.1S “I will not write the poem because I can’t.PRES.” (Cunha & Cintra 1984: 457) (1b) Future (π ep) > Intention “Não escreverei o poema porque não consigo.M. source meaning always available. but it is still cancellable.” 38 .FUT.” not write.1S the.S poem “I will not write the poem.S poem because not manage.FUT.1S the.3.M.

double of.3.PTCP.” a donation 39 doppio della penale the.” fix.M.the.PL the.F.S PREP precedence doppio the.S. double della penale fissata of.” (Renzi & Salvi 1991:115) (2b) Future (π ep) > Obligation “I trasgressori pagheranno il fare una donazione..PL the.. offenders pay.PL.M.PL.F.S.F. offenders pay. fine “From now on.3.FUT.S.M.3PL do “The offenders will pay twice the previously established fine if they want to make a donation.3.M. source meaning always available. Bridging contexts The target meaning is the most likely to be inferred.the.” .FUT. but it is still cancellable. i from-now-on trasgressori pagheranno il in precedenza. fine (. the offenders will pay twice the previously established fine.) se vorranno if want. (2) Future (π ep) > Obligation “D’ora innanzi.S.FUT.

The target meaning now provides the only possible interpretation.3.” (Heine 2002: 85) 40 . an interpretation in terms of the source meaning is ruled out. or in conflict. Heine (2002): relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization III. “They are incompatible. d. Switch contexts (older meaning backgrounded) a. b. c. Unlike conventional meanings. with some salient property of the source meaning. meanings appearing in switch contexts have to be supported by a specific context (or cluster of contexts). Hence.

” leadership was pure nonsense.3PL close.. the target meaning is the only reasonable interpretation. Switch contexts The source meaning is ruled out.FUT.PRES.PAST.F.PTCP that the.PL pure.S madness “According to sources have said that the criticism of Guterres’ “Soares will probably which are quite close to him Soares said that the criticism of Guterres’ leadership was pure nonsense.S COP.F.PF.3. (3) Subjective epistemic modality (π p) > Reportative (π C) “Segundo fontes que lhe são próximas críticas à loucura’.PL Soares terá dito (.) que as ‘pura Soares AUX..3S say.F.PL criticisms PREP leadership de Guterres foram of Guterres COP.” liderança according-to sources REL 3.3.DAT.” (Squartini 2001: 319) 41 . but still requires a highly specific context.

” in-the.M.3.M.PTCP no Canadá. Switch contexts The source meaning is ruled out. (4) Subjective epistemic modality (π p) > Reportative (π C) “Ensino do Português estará ameaçado teaching of-the.FUT threaten.3S. cited in Squartini 2004) 42 .S Portuguese COP.” (Diário de Notícias 25/02/1999. but still requires a highly specific context.S Canada “Portuguese teaching allegedly endangered in Canada. the target meaning is the only reasonable interpretation.

Heine (2002): relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization IV.” (Heine 2002: 86) 43 .3. Conventional (= grammatical) meaning: “The target meaning no longer needs to be supported by the context that gave rise to it. it may be used in new contexts.

+ future tense indicates that an event will take place in the future..+.” (Boland 2006: 146) 44 . or even in the past *. whereas prediction [= subjective epistemic modality] indicates that a proposition will turn out to be true in the future.. Multifunctionality of the Romance synthetic future Grammatical meaning: subjective epistemic modality (π p) “*. whereas the event itself can take place in the present or future..3..

” already 2S. Switch contexts The source meaning is ruled out.PL “Now you probably understand how we laughed.1.3S the.PF.PAST.S postman “Someone has rung the bell.” IMPERS AUX.PRS.FUT.FUT.” (Rocci 2000: 241) 45 .NOM understand. but still requires a highly specific context. (5) Future (π ep) > Subjective epistemic modality (π p) “Ya tú comprenderás cómo nos reímos.M. the target meaning is the only reasonable interpretation.3S ring. It will be the postman. Ce sera le facteur.PTCP DEM COP.2S how REFL laugh.” (Bybee et al. 1994: 202) (6) Future (π ep) > Subjective epistemic modality (π p) “On a sonné.3.

M COP. Grammatical meaning Conventionalized meanings may occur in new contexts: they are contextually and syntagmatically unconstrained.S wife “He must have died thinking about his wife.” 3S.3.PTCP PREP think.3S die.F.NOM.” (Saussure & Morency 2011: 59) 46 .GER PREP his. (7) Subjective epistemic modality (π p) “Il sera mort en pensant à sa femme.FUT.

= bridging context — = switch context – = grammatical meaning 47 . Multifunctionality of the Romance synthetic future imperative ability inceptive aspect mitigation (Π F) root-possibility posteriority future (π ep) epistemic modality (π p) concession (A)Φ Portuguese: reportative evidentiality (Π C) obligation intention prospective aspect --.3.

3. • Whether a context-induced inference can or can not give rise to a new grammatical meaning is dictated by the general structure of IL and RL. 48 . Multifunctionality and grammaticalization Conclusion 2 • The apparent counterexamples to the scope increase hypothesis – and to the adjacency requirement of Semantic Maps – are adequately explained by describing and categorizing the syntagmatic and situational contexts in which each meaning occurs.

49 . BUT do no longer express the older meaning in any sense. • Meanings appearing in switch contexts can be defined as “protogrammatical” and thus be represented inside the Grammatical Component of FDG. Grammaticalization and grammaticality in FDG Conclusion 3 (or rather Hypothesis 2) • Forms/constructions occurring in switch contexts cannot (yet) express the new meaning “by themselves”.3.

3. Multifunctionality of the Romance synthetic future imperative ability inceptive aspect mitigation (Π F) root-possibility posteriority future (π ep) epistemic modality (π p) concession (A)Φ Portuguese: reportative evidentiality (Π C) obligation intention prospective aspect --.= bridging context — = switch context – = grammatical meaning 50 .

to be continued... .

Nova gramática do português contemporâneo. Aspect. (1986). R. and Pagliuca W. aspect and modality in the language of the world. Basil Blackwell.” In Paul J. L.. (1982). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Tense and aspect systems. Ö. Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics. Bybee.). B. paths of change. L. Nova Iorque. C. (2006). Boland. Anderson. 227-274. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. L. Utrecht: LOT. and Cintra. J.References Anderson. Perkins. 273-312. Hopper (ed. Tense and Modality: Theory. Lisbon: Sá da Costa. Cunha. University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation. (1984). Nichols (eds. (1994).) 1986. The evolution of grammar: tense. (1985). 52 . “The Perfect' as a universal and as a languageparticular category. Acquisition. A. B.” In Wallace Chafe and J. “Evidentials. Typology. and mental maps: Typologically regular asymmetries. Dahl.

Amsterdam: Benjamins. P. (1967). Perridon (eds. Indefinite pronouns. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.) The new psychology of language. "Logic and Conversation"in Cole. M. M. L. (ed. ”The grammar of future time reference in European languages.References Dahl. Berlin: de Gruyter. "On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. (1997).). New York: Academic Press.) Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Haspelmath. Norde and H. Haspelmath. “The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. Grice. M.” In Dahl. Mahwah. 309-328. J. (2003). and Morgan. vol. Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization. Syntax and Semantics III. (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory) Oxford: Oxford University Press. H. Tomasello (ed. M. (1975). Haspemath. 53 .” In M. Ö." In: Olga Fischer. (2004). P. 2. 17-44. (2000). Ö.

(Typological Studies in Language. 580-594.” In I. F. Philadelphia: Benjamins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hengeveld. K. Hengeveld. “The grammaticalization of tense and aspect. Narrog & B. 49) Amsterdam. (1989). B. 54 . Diewald (eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. K. B. U.1. “Layers and operators in Functional Grammar”. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. “On the role of context in grammaticalization. K. J.References Heine. (1991). (2002)..). Claudi.) New reflections on grammaticalization. Heine (eds. 127-157. and Mackenzie.” In H. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Heine. (2011). Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Hengeveld. L. and Hünnemeyer. Journal of Linguistics 25. Wischer and G. (2008).

Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hella (1993).). In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and B. A. 318-327. H. “The grammaticalization of Spanish haber plus participle. Rocci. Historical Linguistics 1991: Papers from the 10th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Approaches to Grammaticalization. 22: Geneva. Bologna: Il Mulino. pp. 1991. Heine (eds. P.). e Salvi. 55 . Renzi. 243-263. L. J. “Grammaticalization and semantic maps”. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (2000). 17–36. Narrog. “L’interprétation épistémique du futur en italien et en français: une analyse procédurale”. In Heiko Narrog and B. (1991). Cahiers de Linguistique française. 241-274. Handbook of grammaticalization.” In Jaap van Marle (ed. "On some principles of grammaticalization". Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heine (eds. (1991). I. pp. J. Olbertz.References Hopper. pp. (2011). G.). Vol. Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione. and Van der Auwera. pp.

E. C. and Dasher. (2009). F. já e aí no Português Brasileiro: um estudo sob a perspectiva da Gramática Discursivo-Funcional. E. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.). (2004). “La Relazione Semantica tra Futuro e Condizionale nelle Lingue Romanze”.References Saussure. Traugott.“ In Winfred P. C. (2011) “A cognitive-pragmatic view of the French epistemic future”. M. Malkiel (eds. Journal of French language studies 2011 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Perspectives on HistoricalLinguistics. E. (2002). Squartini. Revue Romane 39. 68-96. Instituto de Estudos da Linguagem. Lehmann and Y. Souza. 245-271. "From propositional to textual and expressive meanings. de and Morency. L. B. PhD Dissertation. 56 . Amsterdam: Benjamins. (1982). R. R. Gramaticalização dos itens lingüísticos assim. P. Somesemantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. Regularity in Semantic Change. Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Traugott.

"The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited.” In Elizabeth C. 189-218. (1998). Traugott and Bernd Heine. E. (eds.) . Linguistic Typology 2: 79-124. V. “Modality’s semantic map”. E. and König. Approaches to Grammaticalization. I. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 57 . (1991). J. Van der Auwera. C. and Plungian. Vol.References Traugott.