The article deals with cross-linguistic patterns of past tense verb forms functioning under the category of irrealis. Approaching language as a means and process of understanding and organizing the world, we examine ways in which the irreal meaning of the past tense is grounded in human experience. Theory of language does not seem to offer a consistent explanation as to why the past is irreal or why irreality is construed in past tense verbs. With this in mind, the investigation of the preterit as an irrealis marker across languages builds on a cognitive interpretation of the contrastive analysis. In other words, typological regularities of the irreal past are explained in terms of embodied reasoning in which a human engages when interacting with the world and others. It is hypothesized that the meaning of past tense is rooted in the subject’s experience with perspectival alternatives arising with her abstractions from and reflections on interactions with things that are no longer in a perceptual field, which requires coordinations (interpretations) of varied perceptual vantage points and temporal perspectives under uncertainty. It follows that the past as a domain of mediated, secondary observations (“hindsight observations”) is conceptualized as a domain of hypothetical entities and actions on which the meaning of irreality builds. Research data is mainly represented by corpus-based examples from literary and spoken discourse of Russian, English, and Bulgarian. The cognitive analysis reveals that past-tense marking of irrealis is accounted for by the prevalently relational, inter-subjective semantics through which a discourse of the past is constructed and made sense of relative to displaced and displaceable reference points, aka other subjects’ perspectives. This semantic distinction helps understand the difference between grammatical forms and meanings that underlie such categories as subjunctive, palliative, desiderative, dubitative, apprehensive, and other irreal moods across languages. In particular, non-preterit markers of irrealis in English and Russian subjunctives are apparently linked to a more linear and/or egocentric reasoning about temporal changes, whereby reality is identified with the “inner moving force” or the subject’s interests and desires that she can hardly control (as in imperative mood, for example), that is why such grammatical expressions of irreality are usually more emotional, colloquial and logically basic. Preterit markers, by contrast, are embedded in a more participatory, dialogical discourse that involves engagement in open-ended meaning-making wherein no definitive answer, decision, or choice is required, but rather options for acting are left open (as in counterfactuals and optatives, for example). Therefore, such expressions of irreality are usually more polite and logically challenging.
Read full abstract