On tenses as speech-act-level functions
Towards a novel analysis of the French ‘narrative’ imparfait
Abstract
This paper aims at demonstrating the validity of a two-pronged hypothesis: (i) that the aspectual viewpoint content of the so-called ‘narrative imparfait’ (NIMPF) does not bear on the verb it marks (i.e., it does not combine with the event predicate denoted by said verb) but that, therefore, (ii) it must operate at a higher, discursive semantic level. To substantiate the above hypothesis, the paper first focuses on diachronic and synchronic evidence suggesting that the NIMPF does not contribute aspectual meaning at the sentence semantics-level – showing notably that it behaves like a ‘viewpoint neutral’ tense with respect to the verb it marks. The paper then discusses synchronic, discursive evidence supporting the view that the NIMPF actually indicates a partial, discourse-structurally incomplete, ‘ongoing’ narrative act. From these two facts, the paper concludes that NIMPF utterances refer to imperfectively viewed narrative speech act events, and constitute a separate speech act-level conventionalized reading of the imparfait, applying an imperfective viewpoint meaning to relational speech act functions, i.e., to rhetorical relations. It is argued that they should be endowed with a speech act event argument, and constitute an abstract type of event predicate which the viewpoint meaning of the NIMPF takes as its input.
Keywords
imparfait, speech act function, viewpoint aspect, discourse structure, temporalityReferences
Abraham, Werner (ed.). 1991. Discourse Particles – Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.12
Altshuler, Daniel. 2014. A typology of partitive aspectual operators. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32(3): 735–775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9232-1.
Altshuler, Daniel. 2019. A birelational analysis of the Russian imperfective. In M. Prinzhorn, V. Schmitt, & S. Zobel (eds), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14 (2010), 1–18. Konstanz: University of Konstanz. https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2010.v14i0.456.
Asher, Nicholas. 1993. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Asher, Nicholas. 2004. Discourse Topic. Theoretical Linguistics 30: 163–201. https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2004.30.2-3.163
Asher, Nicholas. 2011. Lexical Meaning in Context: A Web of Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511793936
Asher, Nicholas, & Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Asher, Nicholas, Laurent Prévot, & Laure Vieu. 2007. Setting the Background in Discourse. Discours 1. https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.301
Barwise, Jon, & John Perry. 1983. Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Berthonneau, Anne-Marie, & Georges Kleiber. 1993. Pour une nouvelle approche de l’imparfait: l’imparfait, un temps anaphorique méronomique. Langages 27(112): 55–73. https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.1993.1661
Berthonneau, Anne-Marie, & Georges Kleiber. 1999. Pour une réanalyse de l’imparfait de rupture dans le cadre de l’hypothèse anaphorique méronomique. Cahiers de praxématique 32: 119–166. https://doi.org/10.4000/praxematique.2853
Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 1980. Nuovamente sull’imperfetto narrativo. Lingua Nostra 41: 83–89.
Bonami, Olivier. 2002. A syntax-semantics interface for tense and aspect in French. In F. Van Eynde, L. Hellan, & D. Beermann (eds), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 31–50. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. https://doi.org/10.21248/hpsg.2001.3
Bras, Myriam, Anne Le Draoulec, & Laure Vieu. 2003. Connecteurs et temps verbaux dans l’interprétation temporelle du discours: le cas de puis en interaction avec l’imparfait et le passé simple. In S. Mellet, & M. Vuillaume (eds), Modes de repérages temporels (Cahiers Chronos 11). Brill Rodopi. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004487161_007
Bras, Myriam, & Catherine Schnedecker. 2013. Dans un (premier+second+nième) temps vs. En (premier+second+nième) lieu : qu’est-ce qui fait la différence ? Langue française 179(3): 89–108. https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.179.0089
Bres, Jacques. 1999. L’imparfait dit narratif tel qu’en lui-même (le cotexte ne le change pas). Cahiers de praxématique 32: 87–117. https://doi.org/10.4000/praxematique.2852
Bres, Jacques. 2003. Temps verbal, aspect et point de vue : de la langue au discours. Cahiers de praxématique 41: 55–84. https://doi.org/10.4000/praxematique.2646
Bres, Jacques. 2005a. L’imparfait : l’un et/ou le multiple ? A propos des imparfaits narratif et d’hypothèse. In P. Larrivée, & E. Labeau (eds), Nouveaux Développements de l’imparfait (Cahiers Chronos 14), 1–32. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401202336_003
Bres, Jacques. 2005b. L’Imparfait dit narratif. Paris: CNRS Éditions.
Caudal, Patrick. 2012a. Pragmatics. In R. Binnick (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, 269–305. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195381979.013.0009
Caudal, Patrick. 2012b. Relations entre temps, aspect, modalité et évidentialité dans le système du français. Langue française 173(1): 115–129. https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.173.0115
Caudal, Patrick. 2015. Uses of the passé composé in Old French: evolution or revolution ? In J. Guéron (ed.), Sentence and Discourse, 178–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198739418.003.0009
Caudal, Patrick. 2020. Coercion for the ages? A thousand years of parallel inchoative histories for the French passé simple and passé composé. In M. Fuchs, & J. Philipps (eds), Proceedings of LSA 2020 (94th annual meeting of the LSA)- Special Issue – Formal Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. 2, 51–66. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America. https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v5i2.4793
Caudal, Patrick. 2024. On so-called ‘tense uses’ in French as context-sensitive constructions. In M. Becker, S. Dessì Schmid, & J. Egetenmeyer (eds), Tense, aspect and discourse structure (Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Für Romanische Philologie), 17–65. Berlin: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111453897-002
Caudal, Patrick, & James Bednall. 2022. Aspectuo-Temporal Underspecification in Anindilyakwa: Descriptive, Theoretical, Typological and Quantitative Issues. Languages 8(1): 8–46. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8010008
Caudal, Patrick, & David Nicolas. 2005. Types of degrees and types of event structures. In C. Maienborn, & A. Wöllstein (eds), Event Arguments: Foundations and Applications, 277–300. Tübingen: Niemeyer. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110913798.277
Caudal, Patrick, & Laurent Roussarie. 2005. Aspectual Viewpoints, Speech Act Functions and Discourse Structure. In P. Kempchinsky, & R. Slabakova (eds), Aspectual Inquiries (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 62), 265–290. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3033-9_12
Caudal, Patrick, & Laurent Roussarie. 2006. Brands of perfects: semantics and pragmatics. In P. Denis, E. McCready, A. Palmer, & B. Reese (eds), Proceedings of the 2004 Texas Linguistics Society Conference: Issues at the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface, 13–27. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. https://www.lingref.com/cpp/tls/2004/paper1502.pdf
Caudal, Patrick, & Carl Vetters. 2003. Un point de vue elliptique sur l’imparfait narratif. In J. Guéron, & L. Tasmowski-De Rijck (eds), Tense and Point of View, 103–132. Paris: Université Paris X.
Caudal, Patrick, Carl Vetters, & Laurent Roussarie. 2003. L’imparfait, un temps inconséquent. Langue française 138(1): 61–74. https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.2003.6482
Confais, Jean-Paul. 1990. Temps, mode, aspect: les approches des morphèmes verbaux et leurs problèmes à l’exemple du français et de l’allemand. Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Mirail.
Danlos, Laurence. 2007. Integrating discourse relations into lexical semantics. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon (GL’07). Paris, France.
De Wit, Astrid. 2016. The Present Perfective Paradox across Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198759539.001.0001
Dessì Schmid, Sarah. 2019. Aspectuality: an onomasiological model applied to the Romance languages. Berlin: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110562088
Ducrot, Oswald. 1979. L’imparfait en français. Linguistische Berichte (60): 1–23.
Egetenmeyer, Jakob. 2021a. Genre Determining Prediction: Non-Standard TAM Marking in Football Language. Frontiers in Communication. Frontiers 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.730914
Egetenmeyer, Jakob. 2021b. Time Updating Uses of the French Imparfait Extending Across Genres. In L. Baranzini, & L. de Saussure (eds), Aspects of Tenses, Modality, and Evidentiality (Cahiers Chronos 31), 56–77. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004468184_005
Genette, Gérard. 1972. Figures III. Paris: Seuil.
Ginzburg, Jonathan, & Robin Cooper. 2004. Clarification, Ellipsis, and the Nature of Contextual Updates in Dialogue. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(3): 297–365. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000023369.19306.90
Gosselin, Laurent. 1996. Sémantique de la temporalité en français. Bruxelles: Duculot.
Gosselin, Laurent. 1999. Le sinistre Fantômas et l’imparfait narratif. Cahiers de praxématique (32): 19–42. https://doi.org/10.4000/praxematique.2847
Gosselin, Laurent. 2005. Temporalité et modalité. Bruxelles: De Boeck Supérieur. https://doi.org/10.3917/dbu.gosse.2005.01
Gosselin, Laurent. 2015. Séries itératives, phases et agglomérats de procès. Syntaxe & Sémantique 16(1): 67–89. https://doi.org/10.3917/ss.016.0067
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer, & G. Diewald (eds), New Reflections on Grammaticalization, 83–101. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.08hei
Hinrichs, Erhard. 1986. Temporal Anaphora in Discourses of English. Linguistics and Philosophy 9(1): 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627435
Hinterwimmer, Stefan. 2011. Information structure and truth-conditional semantics. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (eds), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language and Meaning - Volume 2(Handbücher Zur Sprach- Und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science [HSK] 33.2), 1875–1908. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255072.1875
Homer, Vincent. 2021. Actualistic interpretations in French. Semantics and Pragmatics 14(12): 1-56. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.14.12
Jahn, Timon. 2022. L’imparfait de rupture et les configurations apparentées : entre discontinuité temporelle et continuité thématique. In J. Zufferey, & T. Mettraux (eds), La dis/continuité textuelle. Paris: Acta Fabula. https://doi.org/10.58282/colloques.8138
Kamp, Hans, & Uwe Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kamp, Hans, & Christian Rohrer. 1983. Tense in texts. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (eds), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, 250–269. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110852820.250
Kleiber, Georges. 2003. Entre les deux mon cœur balance ou L’imparfait entre aspect et anaphore. Langue française138(1): 8–19. https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.2003.6478
Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in Language. London; New York: Routledge.
Krifka, Manfred. 2000. Alternatives for Aspectual Particles: Semantics of still and already. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Aspect (2000), 26(1), 401–412. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v26i1.1125
van Kuppevelt, Jan. 1995. Main structure and side structure in discourse. Linguistics 33(4): 809–833. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1995.33.4.809
Labeau, Emmanuelle. 2007. Et un, ou deux, ou trois ?: Les temps-champions du reportage sportif depuis 1950. In E. Labeau, C. Vetters, & P. Caudal (eds), Sémantique et diachronie du système verbal français, 203–233. Leiden : Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401203838_010
Malchukov, Andrej. 2009. Incompatible Categories: Resolving the “Present Perfective Paradox.” In L. Hogeweg, H. de Hoop, & A. Malchukov (eds), Cross-linguistic semantics of tense, aspect, and modality (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today), vol. 148, 13–33. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.148.02mal
Mauroni, Elisabetta. 2013. La difficile alternanza di imperfetto e passato prossimo in italiano: tempo, aspetto, azione. ACME 66(1–2): 247–294. https://doi.org/10.13130/2282-0035/3878
Michaelis, Laura A. 1996. On the use and meaning of already. Linguistics and Philosophy 19(5): 477–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00632778
Moens, Marc, & Mark Steedman. 1988. Temporal Ontology and Temporal Reference. Computational Linguistics 14(2): 15–28. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=55056.55058
Molendijk, Arie. 1990. Le passé simple et l’imparfait: une approche reichenbachienne. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Morgado Nadal, Laura. 2015. El imperfecto narrativo o de ruptura: desarrollo e implicaciones teóricas. Ph.D. thesis, Universidad de Alcalá. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/tesis?codigo=180360
Muller, Charles. 1966. Pour une étude diachronique de l’imparfait narratif. In Mélanges de grammaire française offerts à M. Maurice Grevisse pour le trentième anniversaire du “Bon usage”, 252–269. Gembloux: Duculot.
Nordlinger, Rachel, & Patrick Caudal. 2012. The tense, aspect and modality system in Murrinh-Patha. Australian Journal of Linguistics 32(1). 73–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2012.657754.
Paczynski, Martin, Ray Jackendoff, & Gina Kuperberg. 2014. When Events Change Their Nature: The Neurocognitive Mechanisms underlying Aspectual Coercion. Journal of cognitive neuroscience 26(9): 1905–1917. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00638.
Partee, Barbara. 1973. Some Structural Analogies Between Tenses and Pronouns in English. Journal of Philosophy 70(18): 601–609. https://doi.org/10.2307/2025024
Patard, Adeline. 2007. L’un et le multiple. L’imparfait de l’indicatif en français. Valeur en langue et usages en discours. Ph.D. thesis, Université Paul Valéry - Montpellier III.
Patard, Adeline. 2018. L’imparfait de l’indicatif en français. In Encyclopédie grammaticale du français en ligne: encyclogram.fr. encyclogram.fr.
Peeters, Bert. 2008. L’imparfait dit ‘narratif’ dans les faits divers de la presse écrite: défocalization et refocalization. In P. Marillaud, & R. Gauthier (eds), Langage, temps, temporalité - 28ème Colloque d’Albi Langages et signification, 55–65. Toulouse: CALS-CPST.
Peeters, Bert. 2017. Le soir même…, l’imparfait défocalisait. In E. Hrubaru, E. Moline, & A.-M. Velicu (eds), Nouveaux regards sur le sens et la référence. Hommages à Georges Kleiber, 257–280. Cluj: Echinox.
Piñango, Maria Mercedes, & Ashwini Deo. 2015. Reanalyzing the Complement Coercion Effect through a Generalized Lexical Semantics for Aspectual Verbs. Journal of Semantics 33(2): 359–408. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffv003.
Poesio, Massimo, & Reinhard A. Muskens. 1997. The dynamics of discourse situations. In P. Dekker, M. Stokhof, & Y. Venema (eds), Proceedings of the eleventh Amsterdam colloquium, December 17-20, 1997, 247–252. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Poesio, Massimo, & David R. Traum. 1997. Conversational Actions and Discourse Situations. Computational Intelligence 13(3): 309–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/0824-7935.00042
Recanati, François. 2010. Pragmatics and Logical Form. In B. Soria, & E. Romero (eds), Explicit Communication (Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition), 25–41. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230292352_2
Roberts, Craige. 2011. Topics. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (eds), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language and Meaning - Volume 2 (Handbücher Zur Sprach- Und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science [HSK] 33.2), 1908–1934. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110589863-011
Saussure, Louis de, & Bertrand Sthioul. 1999. L’imparfait narratif : point de vue (et images du monde). Cahiers de praxématique (32): 167–188. https://doi.org/10.4000/praxematique.2855
Saussure, Louis de, & Bertrand Sthioul. 2005. Imparfait et enrichissement pragmatique. In P. Larrivée, & E. Labeau (eds), Nouveaux Développements de l’imparfait (Cahiers Chronos 14), 103–120. Amsterdam / New York: Rodopi. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401202336_007
Schnedecker, Catherine. 2005. Les chaînes de référence dans les portraits journalistiques : éléments de description. Travaux de linguistique 51(2): 85–133. https://doi.org/10.3917/tl.051.0085.
Smith, Carlota S. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5606-6
Squartini, Mario, & Pier Marco Bertinetto. 2000. The Simple and Compound Past in Romance languages. In Ö. Dahl (ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe, 403–440. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197099.3.403.
de Swart, Henriëtte. 1998. Aspect Shift and Coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16(2): 347–385. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005916004600
Tasmowski-De Rijck, Liliane. 1985. L’imparfait avec et sans rupture. Langue française 67(1). 59–77. https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.1985.4651.
Treikelder, Anu. 2006. Le passé composé de l’ancien français: sémantique et contexte. Une étude sur corpus en contraste avec le passé composé en français moderne. Tartu: Tartu University Press PhD Thesis.
Vet, Co. 1996. Structures discursives et interprétation du discours. Modèles linguistiques 2: 111–122.
Vetters, Carl. 1996. Temps, aspect et narration. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Vieu, Laure, Myriam Bras, Nicholas Asher, & Michel Aurnague. 2005. Locating adverbials in discourse. Journal of French Language Studies 15(2): 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269505002073.
Literary sources of examples
Camus, Albert. 1947. La peste. Edition 1980 (Folio). Paris: Gallimard.
Dumas, Alexandre. 1889. Les mohicans de Paris, tome III. Paris: Calmann Lévy.
Maupassant, Guy de. 1908. Œuvres complètes de Guy de Maupassant, tome 1. Paris: Louis Conard.
Rolland, Martin. 1967. La pipe en sucre. Paris: Edmond Nalis.
Souvestre, Pierre & Marcel Allain. 1987. Fantômas, tome 1. Paris: Robert Laffont.
Zola, Emile (1868), Thérèse Raquin. Paris: Librairie Internationale.
Published
Downloads
Copyright (c) 2024 Patrick Caudal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
