Abstract

Recent literature has debated the nature and robustness of distinctions between pronominal tenses and existential tenses, between absolute tenses and relative tenses, and between perfect aspects and relative tenses. In this paper, we investigate anteriority markers in Javanese and Atayal, two distantly related Austronesian languages. On the basis of a range of empirical diagnostics, we propose that the markers tau in Javanese and -in- in Atayal are relative past tenses with existential semantics. We demonstrate that plausible alternative analyses are not tenable: these markers do not have pronominal tense semantics and they are not perfect aspects despite their salient ‘experiential’ interpretation. Further, we claim that a single language can possess both pronominal and existential tenses. Our diagnostics show that while tau and -in- are existential past tenses, Javanese and Atayal each also have a pronominal tense morpheme which is phonologically null and which pragmatically interacts with tau and -in-.

Highlights

  • Investigating the temporal/aspectual system of a language inevitably involves analyzing the semantics of individual tense/aspect markers in that language

  • Are ‘experiential’ readings always contributed by perfect aspects, or can they be contributed by past tenses?

  • In order to uncover their semantics within the typology of anteriority markers, we use a range of diagnostics to distinguish pronominal tenses from existential tenses, absolute tenses from relative tenses, and past tenses from perfect aspects

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Investigating the temporal/aspectual system of a language inevitably involves analyzing the semantics of individual tense/aspect markers in that language. In order to uncover their semantics within the typology of anteriority markers, we use a range of diagnostics to distinguish pronominal tenses from existential tenses, absolute tenses from relative tenses, and past tenses from perfect aspects. We argue that both markers share the semantics of EXISTENTIAL, RELATIVE PAST TENSES—a striking result considering their different etymology and that these languages are only distantly related within Austronesian. The upshot of our proposal is that a single language can have both types of tenses, suggesting that pronominal and quantificational tenses are distinct types within the inventory of semantic building blocks and that no economy principle rules out this type of language Another important contrast among anteriority markers is that between relative tenses and perfect aspects.

Theoretical framework
Methodology
Javanese tau and Atayal -in- in matrix clauses
Javanese tau and Atayal -in- in embedded clauses
Javanese tau and Atayal -in- are existential past tenses
Summary
The analysis of the existential past tenses
Illustrating our analysis
Javanese and Atayal have both an existential and a null pronominal past tense
The semantics of the null pronominal tense
The tense system of Javanese and Atayal predicts cessation implicatures
Javanese tau and Atayal -in- are not perfect aspects
Evidence against an anteriority-based analysis
Lack of future perfect readings
Relative tense as a distinct phenomenon from perfect aspect
Conclusions
10 Future outlook
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call