Cover not available
Part of
Tense-Aspect-Modality in a Second Language: Contemporary perspectives
Edited by Martin Howard and Pascale Leclercq
[Studies in Bilingualism 50] 2017
► pp. 213–252

Chapter 7
Using the present tense to talk about irreality

Differences and similarities across the L2 grammars of Italian learners of French

| University of Haute-Alsace
Counterfactuality is a semantic subdomain of irreality (Pietrandrea 2010) which results from the comparison of reality to an imagined view of what might have been (Kahneman & Tversky 1982). Previous studies have shown that simple clauses containing the conditional tense are frequently used by native speakers of French to express irreality (Hellberg 1971; Repiso 2013). This use corresponds to the grammatical description of the conditional tense, which is said to mark the posteriority of a process whose realization is deferred to certain hypothetical conditions (Charaudeau 1992). In contrast to the conditional, this study explores the use of the present indicative which our learners predominantly used in the semantic domain of counterfactuality. A heterogeneous group of 23 Italian learners of French completed a mutation task and a predictive task. Their responses were transcribed and analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. At a general level, indicative tenses other than the conditional were significantly overused in the corpus as a whole. This type of response was usually structured by coordinated clauses, similar to linear narrations. However, behind this general pattern, we found three sets of grammatical regularities which allowed us to distinguish the learners: a) an overuse by some learners of bare present forms as well as the periphrastic future form ‘Aller (to go) + Infinitive’; b) a broader repertoire characterizing other learners who combine the present or the imparfait (imperfective) and some forms of the conditional; and c) a dominant use among some learners of the conditional over other indicative tenses. Our results suggest that the present tense is frequently used by Italian learners in the construction of counterfactual scenarios. This may be explained because of (i) a stylistic preference in the case of those learners able to align their productions to the native pattern and (ii) the under-developed grammars of those learners who do not use conditional forms.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The notion of counterfactuality
  • 3.Counterfactuality in second language acquisition
  • 4.Research questions
  • 5.Method
    • 5.1Participants
    • 5.2Stimulus and instructions
    • 5.3Identifying the mutation cores
  • 6.Quantitative analysis
    • 6.1Learner group
    • 6.2French L1
    • 6.3Italian L1
  • 7.Qualitative analysis – Predictive task
    • 7.1French L1
    • 7.2Learner group
      • 7.2.1Present tense
      • 7.2.2Use of the conditional
      • 7.2.3More frequent use of the conditional
    • 7.3Summary of the learners’ patterns
    • 7.4Italian L1
  • 8.Discussion
    • 8.1Verbal morphology and L2 proficiency
    • 8.2The role of immersion in the production of conditional forms
    • 8.3Stylistic preference
    • 8.4L1 influence
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 15 February 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.50.08rep
References (48)
References
Akatsuka, N. & Clancy, P.M. 1993. Conditionality and deontic modality in Japanese and Korean: Evidence from the emergence of conditionals. In Southern California Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference 2, P.M. Clancy (ed), 177–192. Stanford CA: Japanese/Korean Linguistics.Google Scholar
Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española & Real Academia Española. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Sintaxis II. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Au, T.K. 1983. Chinese and English counterfactuals: The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis revisited. Cognition 15: 155–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barceló, G.J. & Bres, J. 2006. Les temps de l’indicatif en français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Bartning, I. 1997. L’apprenant dit avancé et son acquisition d’une langue étrangère. Tour d’horizon et esquisse d’une caractérisation de la variété avancée. Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Etrangère (Aile), 9: 9–50.Google Scholar
Bartning, I. & Schlyter, S. 2004. Itinéraires acquisitionnels et stades de développement en français L2. Journal of French Language Studies 14(3): 281–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, E. 1976. Language and Context: The Acquisition of Pragmatics. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bernini, G. 1995. Lexical expression of modality in second languages: The case of Italian modal verbs. In From Pragmatics to Syntax. Modality in Second Language Acquisition, A. Giacalone Ramat & G. Crocco Galéas (eds), 295–318. Tübingen: Günter Narr.Google Scholar
1994. Le frasi ipotetiche nell’italiano di stranieri. In Italiano lingua seconda / lingua straniera. Atti del XXVI Congresso. Società di linguistica italiana 34, A. Giacalone Ramat & M. Vedovelli (eds), 271–296. Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Bloom, A.H. 1981. The Linguistic Shaping of Thought: A Study in the Impact of Language on Thinking in China and the West. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. 1986. First steps in acquiring conditionals. In On Conditionals, E.C. Traugott, A.G. ter Meulen, J.S. Reilly & C.A. Ferguson (eds), 285–308. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carroll, M., Rossdeutscher, A., Lambert, M. & von Stutterheim, C. 2008. Subordination in narratives and macrostructural planning. A comparative point of view. In‘Subordination’ versus ‘Coordination’ in Sentence and Text [Studies in Language Companion Series 98], C. Fabricius-Hansen & W. Ramm (eds), 161–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charaudeau, P. 1992. Grammaire du sens et de l’expression. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Chevalier, J.C., Blanche-Benveniste, C., Arrivé, M. & Peytard, J. 1964. Grammaire du français contemporain. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Chini, M. 1995. Meno male che non elo un topo, se no mi mangia un gatto, pe finta. In From Pragmatics to Syntax. Modality in Second Language Acquisition, A. Giacalone Ramat & G. Crocco Galèas (eds), 143–172. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1986. Conditionals: A typology. In On Conditionals, E.C. Traugott, A.G. ter Meulen, J.S. Reilly & C.A. Ferguson (eds), 77–99. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimroth, C., Andorno, C., Benazzo, S. & Verhagen, J. 2010. Given claims about new topics. How Romance and Germanic speakers link changed and maintained information in narrative discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 3328–3344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 1984. Espaces mentaux: Aspects de la construction du sens dans les langues naturelles. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Grevisse, M. & Goosse, A. 2008. Le bon usage. Grammaire française. 13ème édition. Brussels: De Boeck Duculot.Google Scholar
Harley, B. 1992. Patterns of second language development in French immersion. Journal of French Language Studies 2: 159–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, M.B. 1986. The historical development of si- clauses in Romance. In On Conditionals, E.C. Traugott, A.G. ter Meulen, J.S. Reilly & C.A. Ferguson (eds), 265–284. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hellberg, G. 1971. Le système hypothétique dans le français écrit et parlé. PhD dissertation, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Hendrix, L., Housen, A. & Pierrard, M. 2001. Connaissances et compétences: L’impact de la grammaire sur le développement des compétences langagières en FLE. In Didactique des langues romanes, le développement de compétences chez l’apprenant, E. Maeder (ed.), 600–605. Brussels: De Boeck Université.Google Scholar
Housen, A., Kemps, N., Pierrard, M. 2006. Stades développementaux et contexte instructionnel: L’acquisition de la morphologie verbale chez des apprenants avancés de FLE. Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 32: 273–293.Google Scholar
Howard, M. 2012. From tense and aspect to modality: The acquisition of future, conditional and subjunctive morphology in L2 French. A preliminary study. In Tense, Aspect and Mood in First and Second Language Acquisition, E. Labeau & I. Saddour (eds), 201–223. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Iatridou, S. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 231–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. 1982. The simulation heuristic. In Judgment under Uncertainty, D. Kahneman, P. Slovic & A. Tversky (eds), 201–208. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Miller, D.T. 1986. Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review 93: 136–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katis, D. 1996. The emergence of conditionals in child language: Are they really so late? In On Conditionals Again [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 143], A. Athanasiadou & R. Dirven (eds), 335–386. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Klein, W. 2009. How Time is Encoded. <[URL]> DOI logo
Klein, W. & Dittmar, N. 1979. Developing Grammars. The Acquisition of German Syntax by Foreign Workers. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Klein, W. & Perdue, C. 1997. The basic variety. Second Language Research 13(4): 301–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, W. & von Stutterheim, C. 2006. How to solve a complex verbal task: Text structure, referential movement and the Quaestio. In Aquisição de línguas estrangeiras, M.R. Brum de Paula & G. Sanz Espinar (eds), 30/31: 29–67.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. 2012. Modality (and tense) in Daakie (Austronesian, Vanuatu). Oral communication. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Mandel, D.R. & Lehman, D.R. 1996. Counterfactual thinking and ascriptions of cause and preventability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71(3): 450–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, D.T. & Gunasegaram, S. 1990. Temporal order and the perceived mutability of events: Implications for blame assignment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59(6): 1111–1118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pietrandrea, P. 2010. The conceptual structure of irreality. A focus on non-exclusion-of-factuality as a conceptual and linguistic category. Language Sciences 34(2): 184–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reilly, J.S. 1982. The Acquisition of Conditionals in English. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Renzi, L. & Salvi, G. 1991. Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. II: I sintagmi verbale, aggettivale, avverbiale. La subordinazione. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Repiso, I. 2013. Parlons de l’irréel. L’expression de la contrefactualité en français, en espagnol et en italien et par des apprenants de français hispanophones et italophones. PhD dissertation, Aix Marseille University. <[URL]>
Riegel, M., Pellat, J.C., & Rioul, R. 1994. Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Riegel, M., Pellat, J.C. & Rioul, R. 2001. Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
2014. Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Schouten, E. 2000. The Role of the Native Language in the Non-Native Acquisition of Hypothetical Conditional Structures. PhD dissertation, The Hague: HAG.Google Scholar
Van linden, A. & Verstraete, J.C. 2008. The nature and origins of counterfactuality in simple clauses. Cross-linguistic evidence. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1865–1895. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, J.C. 2005. The semantics and pragmatics of composite mood marking: The non-Pama-Nyungan languages of northern Australia. Linguistic Typology 9: 223–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wells, G.L. & Gavanski, I. 1989. Mental simulation of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56(2): 161–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yeh, D. & Gentner, D. 2005. Reasoning counterfactually in Chinese: Picking up the pieces. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2410–2415. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Repiso, Isabel
2021. Universal parameters yielding counterfactuals. Theoretical Linguistics 47:3-4 ► pp. 267 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.