Abstract
Abstract
The chapter investigates the existence of a linguistic cycle for counterfactual imperfect constructions based on data from Latin and French. It further aims at explaining why (imperfective) aspect is ‘fake’ in counterfactuals (Iatridou 2000). After arguing for a strict definition of counterfactuality, the chapter expands on the idea that imperfects may trigger counterfactual implicatures. Then it explores the pragmatic origin and conventionalization of the counterfactual imperfect in Latin data and French corpora. Data unveil the repetition of a cycle: (i) the imperfect first develops in counterfactual contexts to refer to the past; (ii) it then extends to non-past counterfactual contexts and becomes part of the construction; (iii) finally the cycle ends when the imperfect construction is reanalysed as a marker of unreality. In the proposed analysis, aspect is ‘fake’ in counterfactuals because it has bleached as a consequence of the constructionalization of the imperfect counterfactual construction.
Publisher
Oxford University PressOxford
Reference529 articles.
1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2018). ‘Evidentiality: the framework’, in Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.1
2. Anand, Pranav, and Valentine Hacquard (2010). ‘The role of the imperfect in Romance counterfactuals’, in Martin Prinzhorn, Viola Schmitt, and Sarah Zobel (eds), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14. Vienna: University of Vienna, 37–50.
3. Andersen, Roger W. (1991). ‘Developmental sequences: the emergence of aspect marking in second language acquisition’, in Thom Huebner and Charles A. Ferguson (eds), Crosscurrents in Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theories. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 305–24.
4. Grammatical aspect and temporal distance in motion descriptions;Frontiers in Psychology,2013