Search

This paper challenges the cross-linguistic validity of the tense–aspect category ‘perfect’ by investigating 15 languages from eight different families (Atayal, Brazilian Portuguese, Dutch, English, German, Gitksan, Japanese, Javanese, Korean, Mandarin, Niuean, Québec French, St’át’imcets, Swahili, and Tibetan). The methodology involves using the storyboard ‘Miss Smith’s Bad Day’ to test for the availability of experiential, resultative, recent-past, and continuous readings, as well as lifetime effects, result-state cancellability, narrative progression, and compatibility with definite time adverbials. Results show that the target forms in these languages can be classified into four groups: (a) past perfectives; (b) experientials; (c) resultatives; and (d) hybrids (which allow both experiential and resultative readings). It is argued that the main division is between past perfectives, which contain a ‘pronominal’ tense, on the one hand, and the other three groups on the other, which involve existential quantification, either over times (experiential) or over events (resultative). The methodological and typological implications of the findings are discussed. The main conclusion of the study is that there is no universal category of ‘the perfect’, and that instead, researchers should focus on identifying shared semantic components of tense–aspect categories across languages.

This paper shows that the distribution of (non‑)finiteness in the South Slavic languages reflects an implicational scale along an independently attested semantic complementation hierarchy (e.g., Givón 1980). We suggest that in the South Slavic languages, finiteness is triggered by clausal agreement features associated with different syntactic heads. Building on a complexity approach to the complementation hierarchy, we propose that cross-linguistic variation in finiteness and variation across different types of complements are the result of language-specific differences in the distribution of agreement features. More broadly, we conclude that there is no (universal) semantic correlate of (non‑)finiteness and, contra cartographic approaches, that finiteness is not confined to a particular domain in the clause. Following Adger (2007), we argue that finiteness can be distributed over all clausal domains.

This paper illustrates restrictions on perfective forms under future interpretation in Serbian. It is argued that such restrictions can be captured under an account based on the syntax-semantics interplay. Regarding semantics, the restrictions arise when the reference time interval is very short (Todorović 2015, 2016). Such an analysis predicts the perfective to be restricted with semantic present, but not in past and future contexts. Interestingly, future interpretation in Serbian can, a.o., be obtained with morphological present – in some of those cases, the perfective is felicitous. It is argued that, in those instances, possibility of the perfective is an indication that the structure contains a covert modal/future component which provides the longer reference time interval needed for the perfective to be felicitous. Regarding syntax, it is proposed that this covert future component requires syntactic licensing. Thus, (im)possibility of the perfective reflects the presence/absence of a covert modal/future element in the structure. More generally, it indicates the composition of the temporal-modal clausal domain.

In many languages, future time reference can be conveyed in more than one grammaticized way. An example is English, which uses will and be going to. These two forms make different semantic and pragmatic contributions, and the source of the contrast is a matter of debate. For example, Copley (2009) argues that both will and be going to have a modal component, but be going to also contains progressive aspect. Klecha et al. (2008) and Klecha (2011) also posit modality for both forms, but argue that will introduces obligatory modal subordination; crucially for them, be going to does not contain the progressive. In this paper, we address the following three questions: (a) Do any other languages show a contrast between will-like and be going to-like futures? (b) Is there cross-linguistic support for the proposal that some futures contain progressive aspect? (c) Can cross-linguistic data shed light on the debate about English?Our answer to all three questions is ‘yes’. We show that (a) Gitksan (Tsimshianic) displays a contrast between will-like and be going to-like futures; (b) their distribution provides support for progressive aspect in the latter type of futures; and (c) Gitksan contributes cross-linguistic evidence to the debate about the nature of futures in English. We provide an analysis that combines elements of both Copley’s (2009) and Klecha’s (2011) accounts. More generally, we argue that different future constructions across languages are derived by combining at least the following three building blocks: prospective aspect, a modal, and the progressive.