Futures in Polish and Slovenian from the perspective of a force-dynamic model

1. Futures in Polish and Slovenian from the perspective of a force-dynamic model Joanna Błaszczak and Dorota Klimek-Jankowska 1

2. Why this image with a chain? Present Future

3. Why this image with a chain? • Copley and Harley (2011) represent the relation between present and future by means of causal chains of situations. • In our talk, we will use their model to account for the facts about Polish and Slovenian future forms.

4. The issue • Polish has two future forms: • a simple future form, and • a periphrastic future form. 4

5. simple future (=SF): just a lexical verb, no auxiliary zje eat.prs.perf.3sg (» ‘He/she will eat.’) periphrastic future (=PF) a combination of the so-called “future auxiliary” BE and an imperfective lexical verb ( in a form of an l-participle or an infinitive) będzie jadł be.aux.3sg eat.prt.impf.sg.m będzie jeść be.aux.3sg eat.inf.impf (»‘He/she will eat.’) Two future forms in Polish 5

6. Observation • The same selectional restriction is observed in other Slavic languages such as Russian, Czech, Slovak. • Russian (Mezhevich 2006:22): Vasja budet čitat’ knigu. Vasja be.3sg read.inf.impf book ‘Vasja will be reading a/the book.’ • The auxiliary BE + [impf] verbal complement seems to be a general pattern. 6

7. BUT: surprise surprise • Slovenian: • Unlike in Polish, in Slovenian the l-participle in PF can be both [+impf] and [+perf]. bom napisal be.aux.prs.3sg write.prt.perf.sg.m bom pisal be.aux.prs.3sg write.prt.impf.sg.m 7

8. Polish two futures: simple future SF lexical_verb.prs.perf periphrastic future PF be.aux + lexical_verb.prt.impfor lexical_verb.inf.impf Slovenian: two futures periphrastic future PF be.aux + lexical_verb.prt.perf periphrastic future PF be.aux + lexical_verb.prt.impf Facts: summary 8

9. Facts: summary • As we have seen, the Polish future forms are to some extent similar to the Slovenian future forms. • However, they are by no means identical.

10. Observation Obviously, SF (Pol.) is different from the Slovenian future forms: SF (Pol.) lexical_verb.prs.perf PF (Slov.)  be.aux + lexical_verb.prt.perf/impf 10

11. Observation What about PF (Pol.) be.aux +lexical_verb.prt.impf and its Slovenian counterpart? There seems to be no obvious difference between them, as both are composed of BE + an imperfective lexical complement. BUT: Despite their seemingly similar morphological make-up, PF (Pol.) and PF (Slov.) are syntactically different. 11

12. Syntactically different Evidence: At first glance it might seem that there is no difference between the Polish PF and the Slovenian PF as negation precedes both bo and będzie. Polish Jan nie będzie pisał. Jan NEG be.aux write.prt.impf.3sg.m Slovenian Janez ne bo pisal. Janez NEG be.aux write.prt.impf.sg.m ‘John will not write.’ (‘John will not be writing.’) 12

13. Syntactically different BUT: There is an important syntactic difference between Polish and Slovenian. First, it is a standard assumption in Slavic linguistics (Rivero 1991, Borsley and Rivero 1994) that there is a difference in the position of negation between Polish and Slovenian. NegP > TP > VP Slovenian TP > NegP > VP Polish Second, bo in Slovenian is a second position clitic (Franks and Holloway King 2000, Migdalski 2010). 13

14. Difference between BE in Polish and Slovenian as to its syntactic position: In Slovenian: BE is higher in the syntactic tree ( in T°) In Polish: BE is lower in the syntactic tree ( in some kind of light vP-shell or “Aspect Phrase”) Syntactically different: Our assumptions 14

15. Consequences of different syntactic positions The BE-aux in Slovenian is a TP-related functional element (“higher auxiliary”). Given its high position, it does not have any influence on the selection of the aspectual form of the l-participle. It can take both [+impf] and [+perf] verbal complements. 15

16. Consequences of different syntactic positions In contrast, będzie in Polish is a VP-related element (“lower auxiliary”). Given its low position it can directly select its verbal complement. It is compatible only with [+impf]. In this respect będzie shows a similar behavior to phase verbs like ‘begin’, which also only select [+impf] VP-complements (Veselovska 1995). 16

17. Consequences of different syntactic positions In contrast, będzie in Polish is a VP-related element (“lower auxiliary”). Given its low position it can directly select its verbal complement. It is compatible only with [+impf]. In this respect będzie shows a similar behavior to phase verbs like ‘begin’, which also only select [+impf] VP-complements (Veselovska 1995). • będzie pisać / * napisać be.aux.3.sg write.inf.impf / * write.inf.perf ‘(s)he will write’ ((s)he will be writing’) imperfective perfective • zacznie pisać / * napisać begin.3.sg write.inf.impf / * write.inf.perf ‘(s)he will begin to write’ imperfective perfective 17

18. Question Why is będzie compatible only with [+impf] verbal complements? 18

19. Answer Unlike the Slovenian bo, the Polish będzie is not completely devoid of the lexical content. It denotes a state BE. Denoting a state, będzie is compatible only with [+durative] eventualities.  Hence only [+impf] VP-complements are possible. 19

20. Prediction Only in Slovenian should it be possible to use a second BE, spelling out the lower “VP-part” of the tree. Why? Because the high BE-aux in T0 in Slovenian is completely devoid of the lexical content. bo + BE Slovenian  będzie + BE Polish  20

21. Our prediction is corroborated. Slovenian (due to Lanko Marušić) bom bil be.aux.1.sg be.prt.sg.m ‘I will be.’ Polish *będę byłbe.aux.1.sg be.prt.sg.m *będę być be.aux.1.sg be.inf (intended: ‘I will be’) będzie + BE bo + BE  21

22. Hypothesis Despite the syntactic differences, the semantic contrasts between BE-aux+l-participle.impf and BE-aux+l-participle.perf in Slovenian have their mirror image in the opposition between the PF and the SF in Polish. Slov. BE-aux+l-participle.impf Pol. PF Slov. BE-aux+l-participle.perf  Pol. SF • Slov. BE+[impf] Pol. PF • Slov. BE+[perf] Pol. SF 22

23. Hypothesis In short: Slov. BE+[impf]/ Pol. PF syntactically different semantically equivalent Slov. BE+[perf]/ Pol. SF syntactically different semantically equivalent 23

24. Common knowledge Obvious aspectual differences between BE+[perf] / SF andBE+[impf] / PF: bounded BE+[perf] / SF vs. unbounded BE+[impf] / PF 24

25. Slovenian [bounded] (due to Lanko Marušić, p.c.) Pismo bom napisal letter be.aux.prs.1sg write.prt.perf.sg.m v 3 ure/*3 ure. in 3 hours / *3 hours ‘I’ll write the letter in three hours.’ Pismo bom pisal letter be.aux.prs.1sg write.prt.imp.sg.m 3 ure/ *v 3 ure. 3 hours / *in 3 hours ‘I’ll write the letter for three hours.’ bounded unbounded 25

26. But what is less known • is the fact that semantically, the difference between these forms is more than just aspectual.

27. New facts Even if there are contexts in which both SF / BE+[perf] and PF / BE+[impf] are equally good, there are other contexts in which only one future form, either SF / BE+[perf] or PF / BE+[impf], is acceptable or at least strongly preferred. 27

28. SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] equally good Contexts: prediction intention 28

29. Context: prediction SF and PF are equally good Scenario: Look at her face: Basia się zaraz rozpłacze. Basia zaraz będzie płakać. ‘Basia is going to / will cry right now.’ 29

30. SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf] areNOT equally good Contexts: warning offering I can‘t believe (= I am amazed that ...) questions 30

31. Methodology A scenario-based online questionnaire for Polish www.ifa.uni.wroc.pl/questionnairePL for Slovenian www.ifa.uni.wroc.pl/questionnaireSL 31

32. “Warning contexts” SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf]have completely different interpretations. 32

33. “Warning contexts”: SF/BE+[perf] Scenario: We see a blind man walking towards a precipice. We see that he is just about to fall down. So we want to prevent this and warn the man. Uwaga, spadniesz! (PL) Pazi, padel boš! (SL) ‘Be careful/Watch out: You are going to fall down (otherwise)!’’  warning – the hearer can still do something to prevent falling 33

34. “Warning contexts”watch out SF/BE+[perf] ok PF/BE+[impf] not ok 34

35. “Warning contexts”: PF/BE+[impf] Scenario: You are a parachuting instructor. Your pupil is just about to jump. You want to signal this. Uwaga, będziesz spadał! (PL) Pazi, boš padal!(SL) ‘Caution: you are now beginning to fall down.’ announcement – the falling is prearranged 35

36. “Warning contexts”announcement PF/BE+[impf]ok SF/BE+[perf] not ok 36

37. “Offering contexts”(Copley 2002, 2009) SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf]have completely different interpretations. 37

38. “Offering contexts”SF/BE+[perf] • Scenario: • If you want, our company will repair your car. • Jeśli chcesz, nasza firma naprawi ci samochód. (PL) • Če želiš, ti bo naše podjetje popravilo avto.(SL) episodic reading

39. “Offering contexts”PF/BE+[impf] • Scenario: • If you want, our company will repair your car. • #Jeśli chcesz, nasza firma będzie ci naprawiaćsamochód. (PL) • #Če želiš, ti bo naše podjetje popravljalo avto. (SL) implausible under an episodic reading; a kind of a habitual reading; a longer plan/agreement

40. SF ok PF not ok Offering entails that the decision as to a future action has not been made yet and the hearer can still decide whether he or she wants the offer to be realized in the future. PF is not suitable in offering contexts since it presupposes that the future action is prearranged at the moment of speaking and the hearer has no say on the offered issue. “Offering contexts” (Copley 2002, 2009)

41. “I can‘t believe”(Copley 2002, 2009) Two interpretations: literal meaning I can’t believe idiomatic meaning I can’t believe = I am amazed that… SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf]have completely different interpretations: SF/BE+[perf]only literal meaning, no idiomatic meaning PF/BE+[impf]literal meaning + idiomatic meaning 41

42. Idiomatic I can‘t believePF/BE+[impf] Scenario: Your boss has just asked your colleague John to organize a conference for 200 people. You think this decision is wrong because John is unexperienced and badly-organized. After coming back home you express your amazement to your wife.  Only PF/BE+[impf] can be used in this context. 42

43. Idiomatic I can‘t believePF/BE+[impf] Ciągle jeszcze nie mogę uwierzyć, że Janek będziewykonywałtak odpowiedzialne zadanie. (PL) Ne morem verjeti, da bo Janekopravljal tako odgovorno nalogo.(SL) ‘I cannot believe that John will be performing such a responsible task.’ = ‘I am amazed that John will be performing such a responsible task.’ 43

44. “I can‘t believe” contextsSF/BE+[perf]  only literal meaning, no idiomatic meaning Nie chce mi się wierzyć, że Janek wykona tak odpowiedzialnezadanie.(PL) Ne morem verjeti, da bo Janek opravil tako odgovorno nalogo.(SL) ‘I can’t believe (# ‘I am amazed) that John will fulfil/perform such a responsible task.’ 44

45. Idiomatic I can‘t believe (Copley 2002, 2009) PF/ BE+[impf]ok SF/ BE+[perf]not ok 45

46. “Question contexts” SF/BE+[perf] and PF/BE+[impf]have different interpretations: SF/BE+[perf]: whether = undetermined, who = undetermined PF/BE+[impf] whether = determined, who = undetermined 46

47. “Question contexts”SF/BE+[perf] Scenario: Your car has just broken down. You need help so you ask your older brothers who of them would agree to help you repair the car. It is not predetermined whether any of them would agree to do this. So you actually ask whether a future action is going to take place and who will perform it. Kto naprawi mi samochód? (PL) Kdo mi bo popravil avto? (SL) ‘Who will repair my car?’ 47

48. “Question contexts”: who and whether = undetermined SF/BE+[perf] 48

49. “Question contexts”PF/BE+[impf] Scenario: Your car has broken down. You take it to a car repair station. They agree to repair your car within a week. You are still curious which mechanic exactly will be repairing your car. In this context the future action is preplanned and you only want to know who will perform it. Kto będzie mi naprawiał samochód? (PL) Kdo mi bo popravljal avto? (SL) ‘Who will be repairing my car?’ 49

50. “Question contexts”: whether = determined, who = undetermined PF/BE+[impf] 50