A Diachronic Analysis of Variable Futureinthe Past and
A Diachronic Analysis of Variable Future-in-the. Past and Canonical Future Expression in Spanish Sara L. Zahler and Danielle Daidone Indiana University Introduction Results Forms used to express canonical future (CF) and future-in-the-past (FP) are claimed to be analogous (e. g. Alarcos 1. Adverbial Modification Future-in-the-past & Canonical Future Llorach, 1973; Di Tullio, 1997; Lozano, 1988; Radanova-Kusceva & Kitova-Vasileva, 1985; Stockwell, Bowen, & Martin, 1965). • • • daría “I would give” ≈ daré “I will give” iba a dar “I was going to give” ≈ voy a dar “I am going to give” daba “I was giving” ≈ doy “I am giving” Variation in CF forms has been shown to be constrained by numerous linguistic factors in Romance varieties, such as adverbial modification, temporal proximity, polarity, sentence modality, and verb class. • Periphrastic forms become more common over time, but their use is dependent on many factors. • The effects of these factors change across time. • These changes indicate how the forms are grammaticalizing (e. g. Aaron, 2006; Poplack & Dion, 2009; Poplack & Malvar, 2007). Our previous diachronic study of FP forms found they were used at similar rates and were constrained by the same factors as reported for CF in previous research, but not all findings were analogous (Daidone & Zahler, 2016) • Possibly due to different methods between Daidone & Zahler (2016) and previous research on CF? Periphrastic form did not occur with any adverbial modification First appearance of periphrastic form with adverbial modification, occurred with 1 specific (FP) and 1 non-specific (CF) adverbial 2. Temporal Proximity Future-in-the-past & Canonical Future Periphrastic form occurred with proximate or unknown proximity Periphrastic form occurred with proximate (CF) or unknown proximity (FP & CF) 1780 -1830 1580 -1630 Independent Variables Corpora • Corpus Diacrónico del Español (CORDE) • 1580 -1630 theater and narrative • 1780 -1830 theater and narrative • Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual (CREA) • 1980 -2004 theater and narrative • 1980 -2004 oral Dependent variables • Canonical future (CF) • Synthetic future – daré “I will give” • Present go-periphrasis – voy a dar “I am going to give” • Future-in-the-past (FP) • Conditional – daría “I would give” • Imperfect go-periphrasis – iba a dar “I was going to give” Extraction • Only subordinate clauses • All grammatical person/number combinations considered • Tokens with meanings apart from CF or FP disregarded Categories None 1. Adverbial Specific Modification Non-specific Proximate 2. Temporal Unknown Proximity Distant/attenuated Indeterminate Affirmative 3. Polarity Negative 4. Sentence Declarative Modality Interrogative Motion Psychological 5. Verb class Dynamic Stative 1 st person 6. Grammatical 2 nd person Person 3 rd animate 3 rd inanimate 7. Verb Frequency Moderate High Verbs extracted for future-in-the-past and canonical future Motion High frequency Dynamic Psychological non-motion ir “to go” hacer “to do/make” querer “to want” llegar “to arrive” dar “to give” saber “to know” Moderate frequency correr “to run” caer “to fall” sacar “to take” recibir “to receive” Stative ser “to be” estar “to be” Frequency was determined using Davies´ (2006) A frequency dictionary of Spanish: Core vocabulary for learners Results 80 70 % periphrastic Differences between periphrastic rate of use are significant for: • Canonical future across time periods. χ2(2, N = 1661) = 281. 73, p <. 001 • Future-in-the-past across time periods. χ2(2, N = 457) = 127. 05, p <. 001 • Between CF and FP in each time period • 18 th: χ2(1, N = 335) = 14. 63, p <. 001 • 20 th written: χ2(1, N = 693) = 4. 08, p =. 043 • 20 th oral: χ2(1, N = 1090) = 8. 99, p =. 003 73, 2 61, 1 60 50 40 35, 6 30 27, 3 20 11, 5 10 1, 8 0 1780 -1830 1980 -2004 written Imperfect go-periphrasis 1980 -2004 oral Present go-periphrasis Significant distributions from chi-square analyses for future-in-the-past Context Future-inthe-past Century Adverbial Modification 18 th 20 th written --- 20 th oral -- Temporal Proximity --p <. 001 Polarity Sentence Modality Verb Class Grammatical Frequency Person -p =. 009 --- -p =. 001 --- -- -- p <. 001 -- --p =. 036 Significant distributions from chi-square analyses for canonical future Context Canonical Future Century Adverbial Modification Temporal Proximity Polarity Sentence Modality 18 th 20 th written --- p =. 003 p <. 001 -p =. 052 --- -p =. 010 p =. 031 p =. 007 20 th oral p <. 001 p =. 048 p =. 006 -- p <. 001 p =. 001 Sara Zahler, Danielle Daidone Indiana University Email: szahler@indiana. edu, ddaidone@indiana. edu Periphrastic form occurred with higher proportion in proximate > unknown > indeterminate > distant/attenuated 1980 -2004 written 1980 -2004 oral Future-in-the-past Periphrastic form occurred only in affirmative contexts 1580 -1630 1780 -1830 Periphrastic form occurred only in affirmative contexts 1580 -1630 Periphrastic form occurred with a higher proportion in negative contexts Periphrastic form trended towards a higher proportion in affirmative contexts 1980 -2004 written Canonical Future 1980 -2004 oral Periphrastic form occurred only in affirmative contexts Periphrastic form trended towards a higher proportion in affirmative contexts Periphrastic form occurred with a higher proportion in negative contexts 1780 -1830 1980 -2004 written 1980 -2004 oral 4. Sentence Modality Future-in-the-past Periphrastic form occurred in declarative contexts Periphrastic form occurred in declarative and interrogative contexts 1580 -1630 1780 -1830 Periphrastic form occurred in declarative contexts Periphrastic form occurred in declarative and interrogative contexts 1580 -1630 Periphrastic form occurred in declarative and interrogative contexts 1980 -2004 written Canonical Future Periphrastic form trended towards a higher proportion in interrogative contexts 1980 -2004 oral Periphrastic form trended towards a higher proportion in interrogative contexts 1980 -2004 written 1780 -1830 1980 -2004 oral 5. Verb Class Future-in-the-past & Canonical Future All verb classes appeared in periphrastic for FP, only motion and dynamic non-motion in periphrastic for CF, dynamic non-motion largest proportion of periphrastic for both Periphrastic form occurred with all verb types; no discernable pattern 1580 -1630 1780 -1830 Periphrastic form occurred with a higher proportion in dynamic nonmotion verbs 1980 -2004 written 1980 -2004 oral 6. Grammatical Person entender “to understand” resultar “to result” recordar “to remember” corresponder “to correspond” Periphrastic variants as a percent of total data across time Periphrastic form occurred with higher proportion in proximate > unknown > indeterminate > distant/attenuated 3. Polarity The current study examines CF variation using the same method as previously employed to look at FP variation Methods 1980 -2004 oral 1980 -2004 written 1780 -1830 1580 -1630 Periphrastic form occurred most without an adverbial, then specific; least with non-specific Periphrastic form occurred most with a specific adverbial, then none; least with nonspecific Verb Class Grammatical Frequency Person p =. 046 --- Future-in-the-past & Canonical Future Periphrastic form occurred with both 1 st person and other animate and inanimate subjects. 1580 -1630 1780 -1830 Periphrastic form trended towards (PF) or occurred with (CF) a higher proportion in 1 st person contexts 1980 -2004 written Periphrastic form trended towards (PF) or occurred with (CF) a higher proportion in 1 st person contexts 1980 -2004 oral 7. Verb frequency Future-in-the-past Moderate and high frequency verbs occurred with periphrastic 1580 -1630 1780 -1830 Moderate and high frequency verbs occurred with periphrastic Higher proportion of periphrastic form with moderate frequency verbs 1580 -1630 1780 -1830 Higher proportion of periphrastic form with moderate frequency verbs 1980 -2004 written Canonical Future Moderate and high frequency verbs occurred in periphrastic 1980 -2004 written Tendency towards higher proportion of periphrastic form with moderate frequency verbs 1980 -2004 oral Moderate and high frequency verbs occurred in periphrastic 1980 -2004 oral Discussion/Conclusions 1. Strong similarities between future-in-the-past and canonical future variation across time • Similar rise in periphrastic form in each context • Similar effects of adverbial modification, temporal proximity, verb class, grammatical person 2. Differences between the two contexts may be due to epistemic uses of the synthetic future (daré “I must give”) or lack of relevant contexts for future-in-the-past forms. • Polarity • Sentence modality 3. Demonstrates the importance of methodological consistency. Numerous differences disappeared when employing the same methodology. 4. Demonstrates the connectedness of the entire tense-mood-aspect system as well as several aspects of grammaticalization theory • A change in one variable context can manifest in other variable contexts • Analogous forms undergo similar routes of grammaticalization, largely due to their lexico-semantic origins • Retention of prior meanings affect later meanings • Forms undergo semantic bleaching as they grammaticalize Aaron, J. E. (2006). Variation and change in Spanish future temporal expression: Rates, constraints, and grammaticization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Alarcos Llorach, E. (1973). Gramática de la lengua española [Grammar of the Spanish language]. Madrid, Spain: Espasa Calpe. Daidone, D. & Zahler, S. (2016). The future is in the past: A diachronic analysis of variable future-in-the-past expression in Spanish. In A. Cuza, L. Czerwionka, & D. Olson (Eds. ) Inquiries in Hispanic linguistics: From theory to empirical evidence (pp. 317 -334). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. doi: 10. 1075/ihll. 12. 17 dai Davies, M. (2006). A frequency dictionary of Spanish: Core vocabulary for learners. New York, NY: Routledge. Di Tullio, A. (1997). Manual de gramática del español [Manual of Spanish Grammar]. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Edicial. Lozano, A. G. (1988). The semantics of the Spanish conditional in discourse. Hispania, 71, 675– 680. doi: 10. 2307/342931 Poplack, S. , & Dion, N. (2009). Prescription vs. praxis: The evolution of future temporal reference in French. Language, 85, 557 – 587. doi: 10. 1353/lan. 0. 0149 Poplack, S. , & Malvar, E. (2007). Elucidating the transition period in linguistic change: The expression of the future in Brazilian Portuguese. Probus, 19, 121– 169. doi: 10. 1515/PROBUS. 2007. 005 Radanova-Kusceva, N. , & Kitova-Vasileva, M. (1985). Forme esprimenti un’azione futura rispetto a un momento di riferimento al passato nell’italiano e nello spagnolo contemporaneo [Forms expressing future action with a reference point in the past in contemporary Italian and Spanish]. Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata, 17(1), 1– 31.
- Slides: 1