Indo-European future tenses:

Grammaticalization and Multifunctionality

Riccardo Giomi

University of Lisbon

ILTEC Instituto de Lingustica Terica 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 Knig 1991, Heine 2002 a.o.).

PhD PROJECT Grammatical Expressions of Future Time Reference in Indo-European Languages

panchronic perspective (Heine, Claudi & Hnnemeyer (1991: 248259): 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

Todays 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

1. Theoretical background
Grammaticalization Theory
1. Unidirectionality
Content change in F(D)G
Diachronic developments in the field of operators tend to follow the direction 1 > 2 > 3 > 4. (Hengeveld 1989: 142) For TMA categories, there will be scope increase over time along the following scale: situational concept > state-of-affairs > episode > > propositional content (Hengeveld 2011: 583)
6

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

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

1. Theoretical background
F(D)G and grammaticalization (Hengeveld 1989, 2011, Olbertz 1993, Boland 2006, Souza 2009 a.o.)

+ layered structure, elaborated formalism (ability to

capture semantic and pragmatic oppositions in a structured way) > powerful tool for testing hypotheses about directionality (1);

+ interaction of Grammatical, Contextual and

Conceptual Components > explaining pragmatic inferencing / context-induced reinterpretation (2);
9

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

1. Theoretical background
F(D)G and grammaticalization (Hengeveld 1989, 2011, Olbertz 1993, Boland 2006, Souza 2009 a.o.)

+ layered structure, elaborated formalism (ability to

capture semantic and pragmatic oppositions in a structured way) > powerful tool for testing hypotheses about directionality (1);

+ interaction of Grammatical, Contextual and Conceptual

Components > explaining pragmatic inferencing / contextinduced reinterpretation (2);

no explicit account of multifunctionality (3).

11

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

1. 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.e. nodes linked by a line or arrow); Diachronic [claim]: A linguistic form may extend its range of functions on the map in any direction, but not against the direction of an arrow. (Haspelmath 2004: 24)
13

1. Theoretical background
Semantic Maps and grammaticalization
+ capture directionality (1), represented by arrows; lack integration within a wider theory of verbal interaction (H&M 2008: 1) > do not account for pragmatic inferencing / context-induced reinterpretation (2);

+ provide an explicit account of multifunctionality (3), represented by lines/arrows.

14

1. A dual approach
Semantic maps can also be construed by integrating the patterns of development followed by individual grammatical markers (cf. Van der Auwera & Plungian 1998). Paths of development expressed in F(D)G terms are more informative than traditional ones, since they reflect general grammatical hierarchy (also observable synchronically).
want intention (1) future (2) prediction/inference (3)

Figure 2: Developmental path of will (Boland 2006: 162).

15

2. Main lexical sources for Indo-European future tenses

have: Romance, Slavic, Greek;
owe: Germanic; want, wish: Romance, Germanic, Slavic, Greek; movement verbs (go, come): Romance, Germanic;

become: Germanic, Slavic;

start, begin: Slavic;

take, seize: Slavic.
16

2. Paths of development of Indo-European future tenses

posteriority ( e)

future ( ep)

obligation ( fc)

have

LATIN: INFINITIVE + habere > PORT. cantarei, SP. cantar, FR. chanterai, IT. canter

17

2. Paths of development of Indo-European future tenses

(?) posteriority ( e)

future ( ep)

obligation ( fc)

owe

DUTCH: sullen > zullen + INF OLD NORSE: skulu + INF > SWEDISH: ska/skulle + INF

18

2. Paths of development of Indo-European future tenses

posteriority ( e)

future ( ep)

obligation ( fc)

intention ( fc)

owe

ENGLISH: sculan + INF > shall/should V

19

2. Paths of development of Indo-European future tenses

posteriority ( e)

future ( ep)

obligation ( fc)

intention ( fc)

want

ANCIENT GREEK: + + SUBJ > + SUBJ > GREEK: + SUBJ

20

2. Paths of development of Indo-European future tenses

posteriority ( e)

future ( ep)

obligation ( fc)

intention ( fc)

want, wish

OLD ENGLISH: willan + INF > ENGLISH: will/would V OCS: xotet + INF > xotet (+ ) + SUBJ > BULGARIAN: te + SUBJ
21

2. Paths of development of Indo-European future tenses

posteriority ( e)

future ( ep)

obligation ( fc)

intention ( fc)

prospective aspect ( fc)

go

ENGLISH: be going to V DUTCH: gaan + INF

22

2. Paths of development of Indo-European future tenses

ANCIENT > LATE MEDIEVAL GREEK: / + INF
have

ability ( fc)

root-possibility ( e)

posteriority ( e)

future ( ep)

obligation ( fc)

intention ( fc)

prospective aspect ( fc)

23

2. Paths of development of Indo-European future tenses

GERMAN: werden + INF
turn > become

ability ( fc)

inceptive aspect ( fc)

root-possibility ( e)

(?) posteriority ( e)

future ( ep)

obligation ( fc)

intention ( fc)

prospective aspect ( fc)

24

2. Paths of development of Indo-European future tenses

SWEDISH: kommer (att) + INF
come

ability ( fc)

inceptive aspect ( fc)

root-possibility ( e)

posteriority ( e) obligation ( fc)

future ( ep)

intention ( fc)

prospective aspect ( fc)

25

2. Paths of development of Indo-European future tenses

OCS: bdo + INF > EAST SLAVIC, WEST SLAVIC: budu + INF OCS: na-/po-/u-no + INF > EAST SLAVIC DIALECTS: -no + INF OLD RUSSIAN: INF + jimu > UKRANIAN: govoriti-mu (I will speak)
become, start, begin, take, seize

ability ( fc)

inceptive aspect ( fc)

root-possibility ( e)

posteriority ( e)

future ( ep)

obligation ( fc)

intention ( fc)

prospective aspect ( fc)

26

2. From lexical meaning to Future

have come, become, start, begin, take

ability (

fc)

inceptive aspect ( fc) posteriority ( e) future ( ep)

root-possibility ( e)

obligation ( fc)

intention ( fc) want, wish, intend to, go

prospective aspect ( fc)

owe, have

27

2. To Future and beyond

have come, become, start, begin, take

ability (

fc)

inceptive aspect ( fc) posteriority ( e) fc)

imperative (F: IMP (F))

mitigation ( F) concession (A) reportative evidentiality ( C)

root-possibility ( e)

future ( ep)

epist.modality/ inference ( p)

obligation (

intention ( fc)

prospective aspect ( fc)

owe, have

want, wish, intend to, go

28

2. Content change involving non-adjacent layers

inceptive aspect ( fc)

ability ( fc) root-possibility ( e)

posteriority ( e)

future ( ep)

obligation ( fc)

intention ( fc)

prospective aspect ( fc)

29

2. Content change without increase in scope

ANCIENT > LATE MEDIEVAL GREEK: / + INF
have

ability ( fc) root-possibility ( e)

inceptive aspect ( fc) posteriority ( e) future ( ep) intention ( fc) prospective aspect ( fc)
30

obligation ( fc)

2. Content change without increase in scope

ability ( fc)
inceptive aspect ( fc) posteriority ( e) future ( ep)

root-possibility ( e)

obligation ( fc)

intention ( fc)

prospective aspect ( fc)

owe

ENGLISH: sculan + INF > shall/should V

31

2. Content change without increase in scope

ability ( fc)
inceptive aspect ( fc) posteriority ( e) future ( ep)

root-possibility ( e)

obligation ( fc)

intention ( fc)

prospective aspect ( fc)

go

ENGLISH: be going to V DUTCH: gaan + INF

32

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 Hengevelds (1989, 2011) scope increase hypothesis, but also suggests that this might need be relaxed in that
a) scope widening does not always involve adjacent layers (cf. Boland 2006: 193);

b) when one single semantic change is considered, there need not be widening in scope.
33

3. Multifunctionality of the Romance synthetic future

imperative (F: IMP (F)) mitigation ( F)

ability ( fc)
root-possibility ( e)

inceptive aspect ( fc)

posteriority ( e) intention ( fc) future ( ep)

epistemic modality ( p)

concession (A) Portuguese: reportative evidentiality ( C)

obligation ( fc)

prospective aspect ( fc)

PORT. cantarei;

SP. cantar;

FR. chanterai;

IT. canter.
34

3. 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; it may be used in new contexts

Target meaning only

(Heine 2002: 86)

35

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

3. Heine (2002): relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization

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

3. Bridging contexts
The target meaning is the most likely to be inferred, but it is still cancellable; source meaning always available.

(1) Future ( ep) > Intention

No escreverei o poema. not write.FUT.1S the.M.S poem I will not write the poem. (Cunha & Cintra 1984: 457)

(1b) Future ( ep) > Intention

No escreverei o poema porque no consigo.
not write.FUT.1S the.M.S poem because not manage.PRES.1S

I will not write the poem because I cant.

38

3. Bridging contexts
The target meaning is the most likely to be inferred, but it is still cancellable; source meaning always available.
(2) Future ( ep) > Obligation
Dora innanzi, i
from-now-on

trasgressori pagheranno il in precedenza.

fix.PTCP.F.S PREP precedence

doppio

the.M.PL. offenders

pay.FUT.3.PL the.M.S. double

della

penale fissata

of.the.F.S. fine

From now on, the offenders will pay twice the previously established fine. (Renzi & Salvi 1991:115)

(2b) Future ( ep) > Obligation

I trasgressori pagheranno il fare una donazione.
a donation
39

doppio della

penale

the.M.PL. offenders

pay.FUT.3.PL the.M.S. double of.the.F.S. fine

(...) se vorranno

if want.FUT.3PL do

The offenders will pay twice the previously established fine if they want to make a donation.

3. Heine (2002): relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization

III. Switch contexts (older meaning backgrounded)
a. They are incompatible, or in conflict, with some salient property of the source meaning.

b. Hence, an interpretation in terms of the source meaning is ruled out.

c. The target meaning now provides the only possible interpretation. d. Unlike conventional meanings, meanings appearing in switch contexts have to be supported by a specific context (or cluster of contexts). (Heine 2002: 85)
40

3. Switch contexts
The source meaning is ruled out; the target meaning is the only reasonable interpretation, but still requires a highly specific context.
(3) Subjective epistemic modality ( p) > Reportative ( C)
Segundo fontes que lhe so prximas crticas loucura. liderana
according-to sources REL 3.DAT.S COP.PRES.3PL close.F.PL

Soares ter

dito (...) que as pura

Soares AUX.FUT.3S say.PTCP that the.F.PL criticisms PREP leadership

de Guterres foram

of Guterres COP.PF.PAST.3.PL pure.F.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. leadership was pure nonsense. (Squartini 2001: 319)
41

3. Switch contexts
The source meaning is ruled out; the target meaning is the only reasonable interpretation, but still requires a highly specific context. (4) Subjective epistemic modality ( p) > Reportative ( C)
Ensino do Portugus estar ameaado
teaching of-the.M.S Portuguese COP.3S.FUT threaten.PTCP

no

Canad.

in-the.M.S Canada

Portuguese teaching allegedly endangered in Canada. (Dirio de Notcias 25/02/1999, cited in Squartini 2004)

42

3. Heine (2002): relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization

IV. 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. (Heine 2002: 86)
43

3. Multifunctionality of the Romance synthetic future

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

3. Switch contexts
The source meaning is ruled out; the target meaning is the only reasonable interpretation, but still requires a highly specific context.
(5) Future ( ep) > Subjective epistemic modality ( p)
Ya t comprenders cmo nos remos. already 2S.NOM understand.FUT.2S how REFL laugh.PF.PAST.1.PL Now you probably understand how we laughed. (Bybee et al. 1994: 202)

(6) Future ( ep) > Subjective epistemic modality ( p)

On a sonn. Ce sera le facteur.
IMPERS AUX.PRS.3S ring.PTCP DEM COP.FUT.3S the.M.S postman

Someone has rung the bell. It will be the postman. (Rocci 2000: 241)

45

3. Grammatical meaning
Conventionalized meanings may occur in new contexts: they are contextually and syntagmatically unconstrained.
(7) Subjective epistemic modality ( p)
Il sera mort en pensant sa femme.
3S.NOM.M COP.FUT.3S die.PTCP PREP think.GER PREP his.F.S wife

He must have died thinking about his wife. (Saussure & Morency 2011: 59)

46

3. Multifunctionality of the Romance synthetic future

imperative
ability inceptive aspect mitigation ( F)

root-possibility

posteriority

future ( ep)

epistemic modality ( p)

concession (A) Portuguese: reportative evidentiality ( C)

obligation

intention

prospective aspect

--- = bridging context

= switch context

= grammatical meaning
47

3. 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.

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

3. 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, 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.
49

3. Multifunctionality of the Romance synthetic future

imperative
ability inceptive aspect mitigation ( F)

root-possibility

posteriority

future ( ep)

epistemic modality ( p)

concession (A) Portuguese: reportative evidentiality ( C)

obligation

intention

prospective aspect

--- = bridging context

= switch context

= grammatical meaning
50

to be continued...

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

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

References
Heine, B. (2002), On the role of context in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer and G. Diewald (eds.) New reflections on grammaticalization. (Typological Studies in Language, 49) Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. Heine, B., Claudi, U. and Hnnemeyer, F. (1991), Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hengeveld, K. (1989), Layers and operators in Functional Grammar. Journal of Linguistics 25.1, 127-157. Hengeveld, K. (2011), The grammaticalization of tense and aspect. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, 580-594. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hengeveld, K. and Mackenzie, J. L. (2008), Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
54

References
Hopper, P. J. (1991), "On some principles of grammaticalization". In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and B. Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1991. pp. 1736. Narrog, H. and Van der Auwera, J. (2011), Grammaticalization and semantic maps, In Heiko Narrog and B. Heine (eds.), Handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 318-327. Olbertz, Hella (1993), The grammaticalization of Spanish haber plus participle. In Jaap van Marle (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1991: Papers from the 10th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 243-263. Renzi, L. e Salvi, G. (1991), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Bologna: Il Mulino. Rocci, A. (2000), Linterprtation pistmique du futur en italien et en franais: une analyse procdurale, Cahiers de Linguistique franaise, 22: Geneva, pp. 241-274.

55

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

56

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

57