Proceedings of FDSL 9, Göttingen 2011
Edited By Uwe Junghanns, Dorothee Fehrmann, Denisa Lenertová and Hagen Pitsch
Joanna Błaszczak & Dorota Klimek-Jankowska: Futures, Futurates, Plans and Forces
Futures, Futurates, Plans and Forces* Joanna Błaszczak & Dorota Klimek-Jankowska University of Wrocław Abstract In this paper we account for some novel contrasts in the distribution of futurate, simple and periphrastic future forms in Polish. We work out the formal semantics of these forms using a force-theoretic framework recently proposed by Copley (2012) and Copley & Harley (2011). More precisely, we explain how the semantics of these forms constrains their distribution depending on the availability of a plan in the context of use. 1 The issue Polish uses two types of constructions to express a future time reference: i) a “simple future” (= SF) (see (1)) and ii) a “periphrastic future” (= PF) (see (2)). (1) Ajax zagra z FC Porto. SF Ajax play.prs.perf.3sg with FC Porto ‘Ajax will play with FC Porto.’ (it cannot mean: ‘Ajax is playing with FC Porto.’) (2) Ajax będzie grał / grać z FC Porto. PF Ajax be.aux.3sg play.prt.impf.sg.m play.inf.impf with FC Porto ‘Ajax will be playing with FC Porto.’ (it cannot mean: ‘Ajax is playing with FC Porto.’) SF is a present tense form of a perfective lexical verb. If one looks closer at the morphological composition of SF, it will become clear that it does not contain any morpheme which could be taken to correspond to “future tense” sensu stricto. In fact, the morphological make-up of SF is identical to that of a present tense form in Polish except for the presence of a “perfectivizing” prefix in SF.1 The fact that in SF...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.