过去时代与未来时代的冲突:差异与相似

Luís Filipe Cunha
{"title":"过去时代与未来时代的冲突:差异与相似","authors":"Luís Filipe Cunha","doi":"10.26334/2183-9077/rapln8ano2021a8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper deals with the main similarities and differences that arise between past and future tenses. In particular, we argue that, while the propositions associated with past tenses are completely settled and their truth-value can be evaluated at the speech time, the propositions described by future tenses cannot be seen as true or false at the utterance time since these linguistic forms are ramifying, in that they typically point to a variety of inertia histories or inertia worlds. Nevertheless, if we consider more closely some particular tenses in European Portuguese – namely the Pretérito Imperfeito (Imperfect) and the Pretérito Perfeito do Indicativo (simple past), as representatives of the past tenses, and the Futuro Simples (simple future) and the structure ir (‘go’) + Infinitive, as representatives of the future ones, we conclude that there are also some important parallels across the two temporal domains. We claim that both the Imperfeito and the Futuro Simples merely locate the situations in a past or future interval, respectively, and that the final interpretation of the sentences in which they occur is the result of the interaction of their temporal characteristics with aspectual and modal features. The Pretérito Perfeito and the structure ir (‘go’) + Infinitive, on the other hand, share the common property of imposing an additional temporal boundary beyond which the eventualities cannot take place; as a result, aspectual effects and modal readings are much more conditioned and pure temporal interpretations – both in the past and in the future – become greatly predominant.","PeriodicalId":313789,"journal":{"name":"Revista da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística","volume":"265 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tempos do passado e tempos do futuro em confronto: diferenças e paralelismos\",\"authors\":\"Luís Filipe Cunha\",\"doi\":\"10.26334/2183-9077/rapln8ano2021a8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper deals with the main similarities and differences that arise between past and future tenses. In particular, we argue that, while the propositions associated with past tenses are completely settled and their truth-value can be evaluated at the speech time, the propositions described by future tenses cannot be seen as true or false at the utterance time since these linguistic forms are ramifying, in that they typically point to a variety of inertia histories or inertia worlds. Nevertheless, if we consider more closely some particular tenses in European Portuguese – namely the Pretérito Imperfeito (Imperfect) and the Pretérito Perfeito do Indicativo (simple past), as representatives of the past tenses, and the Futuro Simples (simple future) and the structure ir (‘go’) + Infinitive, as representatives of the future ones, we conclude that there are also some important parallels across the two temporal domains. We claim that both the Imperfeito and the Futuro Simples merely locate the situations in a past or future interval, respectively, and that the final interpretation of the sentences in which they occur is the result of the interaction of their temporal characteristics with aspectual and modal features. The Pretérito Perfeito and the structure ir (‘go’) + Infinitive, on the other hand, share the common property of imposing an additional temporal boundary beyond which the eventualities cannot take place; as a result, aspectual effects and modal readings are much more conditioned and pure temporal interpretations – both in the past and in the future – become greatly predominant.\",\"PeriodicalId\":313789,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística\",\"volume\":\"265 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26334/2183-9077/rapln8ano2021a8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26334/2183-9077/rapln8ano2021a8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文讨论了过去时和将来时的主要异同。特别是,我们认为,虽然与过去时态相关的命题已经完全确定,它们的真值可以在说话时被评估,但由将来时态描述的命题在说话时不能被视为真或假,因为这些语言形式是发散的,因为它们通常指向各种惯性历史或惯性世界。然而,如果我们更仔细地考虑欧洲葡萄牙语中的一些特定的时态,即presamrito Imperfeito(未完成时态)和presamrito Perfeito do指示式(一般过去时态),作为过去时态的代表,以及Futuro Simples(一般将来时态)和结构ir (go) +不定式,作为将来时态的代表,我们得出结论,在两个时间域之间也有一些重要的相似之处。我们认为,“不真实”和“简单未来”都只是分别将情况定位在过去或未来的间隔中,而对它们所发生的句子的最终解释是它们的时间特征与方面和模态特征相互作用的结果。另一方面,presamrito Perfeito和结构ir (' go ') +不定式具有强加额外的时间边界的共同属性,超过这个时间边界,事件就不会发生;结果,方面效应和模态解读更多的是条件和纯粹的时间解释-在过去和未来-变得非常占主导地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Tempos do passado e tempos do futuro em confronto: diferenças e paralelismos
This paper deals with the main similarities and differences that arise between past and future tenses. In particular, we argue that, while the propositions associated with past tenses are completely settled and their truth-value can be evaluated at the speech time, the propositions described by future tenses cannot be seen as true or false at the utterance time since these linguistic forms are ramifying, in that they typically point to a variety of inertia histories or inertia worlds. Nevertheless, if we consider more closely some particular tenses in European Portuguese – namely the Pretérito Imperfeito (Imperfect) and the Pretérito Perfeito do Indicativo (simple past), as representatives of the past tenses, and the Futuro Simples (simple future) and the structure ir (‘go’) + Infinitive, as representatives of the future ones, we conclude that there are also some important parallels across the two temporal domains. We claim that both the Imperfeito and the Futuro Simples merely locate the situations in a past or future interval, respectively, and that the final interpretation of the sentences in which they occur is the result of the interaction of their temporal characteristics with aspectual and modal features. The Pretérito Perfeito and the structure ir (‘go’) + Infinitive, on the other hand, share the common property of imposing an additional temporal boundary beyond which the eventualities cannot take place; as a result, aspectual effects and modal readings are much more conditioned and pure temporal interpretations – both in the past and in the future – become greatly predominant.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
O que ainda não sabemos e precisávamos de saber para o ensino de Português Língua Não Materna Contrastando o português paulista e o português gaúcho: interpretação da formalidade dos pronomes sujeito de segunda pessoa do singular Compreensão de estruturas sintáticas com movimento A’ e com movimento A em crianças portuguesas surdas com implante coclear: efeitos da idade de início de exposição ao input linguístico e do tempo de exposição à língua Reconhecimento Automático Multilingue de Entidades Mencionadas em Diversos Domínios, para Efeitos de Anonimização de Tradução Automática Anotação de Entidades Mencionadas na área do Gaming
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1