Chapter published in:
Verb and Context: The impact of shared knowledge on TAME categories
Edited by Susana Rodríguez Rosique and Jordi M. Antolí Martínez
[IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature 34] 2023
► pp. 231–262

Epistemic futures and aspect

A cross-linguistic perspective

| University of Ottawa

A comparative study of futures in Bulgarian and Slovenian, Turkish and Iranian Azeri, Hindi-Urdu, and Spanish. It argues that future morphology encodes a modal category FUT without inherent temporality. Temporal Orientation derives from Viewpoint Aspect categories embedded under FUT, which may differ in phonological content. Such a phonological contrast is significant for the syntax-morphology interface, but has no effect on the syntax-semantics interface. The semantics of future constructions are importantly constrained by formal structural factors such as locality and intervention. Viewpoint plays a primary role in the interpretation of futures since as a higher category in the clausal architecture it often neutralizes the effects on FUT of Lexical Aspect as a lower category in the structure.

Keywords:
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.South Slavic
    • 2.1Bulgarian
    • 2.2Slovenian
  • 3.Turkish and Azeri
  • 4.Hindi – Urdu
  • 5.Spanish
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.34.10riv
References
Alarcos Llorach, Emilio
1970 “Cantaría: modo, tiempo y aspecto.” In Estudios de Gramática Funcional del Español, 106–119. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Arregi, Karlos and Pietraszko, Asia
2021 “The Ups and Downs of Head Displacement.” Linguistic Inquiry 52 (2): 241–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark Cleland
1988 Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, Michael and Partee, Barbara
1978 Towards the logic of tense and aspect in English. Indiana: IULC.Google Scholar
Bjorkman, Bronwyn
2011 BE-ing default: The morphosyntax of auxiliaries. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Broekhuis, Hans and Verkuyl, Henk J.
2014 Binary tense and modality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 973–1009. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam and Rizvi, Jafar
2008 “Tense and Aspect in Urdu.” In Layers of Aspect, Patricia Cabredo Hofherr and Brenda Laca (eds), 43–62. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
2001 “A note on mood, modality, tense and aspect affixes in Turkish.” In Eser Erguvanlı-Taylan (ed), The Verb in Turkish, 47–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1976 Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo
2002 “Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past.” In The Construction of Meaning, David I. Beaver, Luis D. Casillas Martínez, Brady Z. Clark and Stefan Kaufmann (eds), 59–88. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2003 Moods and modalities for will and would. Handout from the 14th Amsterdam Colloquium.
Deo, Ashwini
2006 Tense and aspect in Indo-Aryan languages: variation and diachrony. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
2009 “Unifying the imperfective and the progressive: partitions as quantificational domains.” Linguistics and Philosophy 32: 475–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gennari, Silvia
2002 “Spanish past and future tenses: less (semantics) is more.” In From Words to Discourse: Trends in Spanish Semantics and Pragmatics, Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach (ed), 21–36. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia and Mari, Alda
2018 “A unified analysis of the future as epistemic modality. The view from Greek and Italian.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36: 85–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göksel, Aslı
2001 “The auxiliary verb öl at the morphology-syntax interface.” In The Verb in Turkish, Taylan E. Eser (ed), 151–181. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göksel, Aslı and Kerslake, Celia
2005 Turkish: A Comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris and Marantz, Alec
1993 “Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection.” In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Ken Hale and Samuel J. Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kelepir, Meltem
2001 Topics in Turkish syntax: Clausal Structure and Scope. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Klecha, Peter
2016 “Modality and embedded temporal operators.” Semantics and Pragmatics 9: 9–1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang
1994 Time in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin
1996 “On some copular clitics in Turkish.” Papers in Linguistics 6: 96–155.Google Scholar
1997 Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1998 “More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses.” Semantics and LinguisticTheory 8: 92–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “Situations in natural language semantics.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed). Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Modals and Conditionals: New and Revised Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kush, Dave
2015 “Future reference and epistemic modality in Hindi.” Journal of South Asian Linguistics 7: 3–36.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard
1981 “Restricting the theory of transformations: A case study.” In Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition, N. Hornstein and D. Lightfoot (eds.), 152–173. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lema, José and Rivero, María-Luisa
1989 “Long Head Movement: ECP vs HMC.” In Proceedings of the twentieth NELS, vol. 2, 333–347. University of Massachusetts: Amherst. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991 “Types of verbal movement in Old Spanish: Modals, Futures, and Perfects.” Probus 33 (3): 237–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa
2012 “On the (non)-future orientation of modals.” Sinn und Bedeutung 16: 431–446.Google Scholar
2013 “Gitksan Modals.” International Journal of American Linguistics 79: 349–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montaut, Annie
2016 “The verbal form -(y)a in Hindi/Urdu: An Aorist with ‘aoristic’ meanings.” In Aspectuality and Temporality, Guentchéva Zlatka (ed), 413–446. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mucha, Anne
2016 “Deriving the temporal properties of future markers from aspect.” Sinn und Bedeutung 20: 533–550.Google Scholar
Parsons, Terence
1990 Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa
2014 “Spanish Inferential and Mirative Futures and Conditionals: An evidential gradable modal proposal.” Lingua 151: 197–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa and Arregui, Ana
2018 “Unconditional readings and the simple conditional tense in Spanish.” Probus 30 (2): 305–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa and Simeonova, Vesela
2015 “The Inferential Future in Bulgarian: An Evidential Modal Proposal.” In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 23: The First Berkeley Meeting 2014, 282–301. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa and Slavkov, Nikolay
2014 “Imperfect(ive) variation: the case of Bulgarian.” Lingua 150: 232–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa and Sheppard, Milena Milojević
2016 “The Slovenian future auxiliary biti as a tenseless gradable evidential modal: Inferential and Concessive readings.” In Formal Studies in Slovenian Syntax, Franc Lanko Marušič and Rok Žaucer (eds), 253–281. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rullman, Hotze and Matthewson, Lisa
2018 “Towards a theory of modal-temporal interactions.” Language 94 (2): 281–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sağ, ‪Yağmur
2013 “Copula in Turkish.” In Umut Özge (ed), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 67: Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 8), 13–24. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Ruth L.
1999 Urdu: An Essential Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Şener, Nilufer
2011 Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Turkish. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Smith, Carlota S.
1991–1997 The parameter of aspect. Kluwer: Dordrecht. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soto, Guillermo
2008 “Sobre el llamado futuro de probabilidad. Algunas condiciones del valor modal de -ré .” Boletín de Filología 40 (3): 193–206.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
2004 “Slavic prefixes inside and outside VP.” Nordlyd 32 (2): 323–361. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Togeby, Knud
1953 Mode, aspect et temps en espagnol. Royal Institute: Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Werner, Tom
2006 “Future and non-future modal sentences.” Natural Language Semantics 14 (3): 235–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yavaş, Feryal
1980 On the meaning of the tense and aspect markers in Turkish. Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas.
1982a “Future reference in Turkish.” Linguistics 20: 411–429. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1982b “The Turkish aorist.” Glossa 16: 40–53.Google Scholar
Zareikar, Gita
2018 “Aspect and Evidentiality in Azeri.” In Tu+ 1: Proceedings of the first workshop on Turkish, Turkic and the languages of Turkey, 179–188. Amherst, MA: GLSA. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Žaucer, Rok
2009 A VP-internal/Resultative Analysis of 4 “VP-External” Uses of Slavic Verbal Prefixes. Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa.