- Email: [email protected]
aspect and the concept of displacement
Journal of Pragmatics North-Holland
11 (1987) 193-209
193
TENSE/ASPECT
AND THE CONCEPT
Charles RANDRIAMASIMANANA
OF DISPLACEMENT
*
A concept called Displacement is proposed which enables one to provide an adequate account of the basic as well as the non-basic uses of the tense/aspect system of a natural language. Displacement describes two types of situation: The first is one in which Speaker S refers to an Entity/Event present within his/her own Here and Now, and does so as if it was not there; the second is one where Speaker S refers to an Entity/Event absent from his/her own Here and Now, and yet does so as though it was present there. This yields a continuum the two extreme points of which are Politeness, at one end, and Emphasis, at the other; the corollary concept of Speaker Perspective mediates between the two.
1. Introductory remarks 1.1
The main purpose of the present paper is to propose a concept called Displacement, which interacts with another relevant parameter, Speaker Perspective, providing a principled and motivated account of the functioning of the basic and non-basic uses of the tense/aspect system of a natural language. 1.2 First, it appears that the concept of Speaker Perspective -with its corollary, Degree of Commitmentis indispensable in an adequate account of the deictic and tense/aspect systems of a number of Austronesian languages, including Malagasy, the westernmost branch of the Malayo-Polynesian family. Thus, Speaker S, who wants to greet his/her interlocutor in Malagasy, will have to encode the type of relationship he/she entertains with the other person. (la) Manao ahoana i dokotera? pres.-do how deictic doctor dokotera? (lb) Manao ahoana ny deictic * Author’s address: C. Randriamasimanana, Language Studies, University of Melbourne,
037%2166/87/$3.50
0
Linguistics Programme, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
1987, Elsevier Science Publishers
Dept. of Russian 3052.
B.V. (North-Holland)
and
194
C. Randriamasimanana 1 Tense/aspect and displacement
(lc) *Manao ahoana 0 dokotera? ‘How are you, Doctor?’ Both (la) and (lb) are polite ways for S to address the doctor, except that in one, the deictic i is used as opposed to ny in the other. The sentence in (lc) is ungrammatical and unacceptable if the deictic is left out. Now, the use of i entails that S and Hearer H entertain a relatively close relationship; in other words, the psychosocial distance is minimal between S and H. The use of ny signifies that the psychosocial distance is maximal, so much so in fact that (lb) is often used jokingly to point out that H is so high on the social hierarchy that s/he is hardly visible from where S stands. To put it slightly differently, s/he is out of sight! 1.3 Second, the notion of Degree of Commitment is necessary if one is to account for the following types of construction in Malagasy: (2a) Mianatra tsara pres.-study well (2b) Hoe mianatra tsara quote (2c) Izany mianatra tsara that (2d) Ity mianatra tsara this (2e) 10 mianatra tsara this (3a) Mianatra tsara (3b) Mianatra tsara
i Paoly. deictic Paul i Paoly. izany i Paoly. that ity i Paoly. this io i Paoly. this i Paoly io. this io i Paoly. this
(2a) means that ‘Paul studies well’. The versions in (2b)-(2e) also have this reading, but in addition (2b) says that Speaker S is merely quoting from someone else and that, as a consequence, s/he should not be held personally responsible for the statement if the latter should turn out to be untrue. The (2~) version implies that Speaker S is not quite positive about his/her statement, that Hearer H has within his/her capacity the means to verify this on his/her own, and that ultimately s/he will have to decide for her-/himself whether s/he should believe S’s statement or not. The (2d) version implicates S more than the others since s/he is ready to testify to the truth of the statement. Finally, (2e) introduces the idea of mutual verifiability in that both H and S share a common Here and Now or share some common knowledge.
C. Randriamasimanana / Tense/aspect and displacement
195
As for (3a) and (3b), the use of the deictic io, either following or preceding the subject of the sentence, indicates that H and S are observing Paul or typically looking at a picture showing Paul working. In the latter case, there are two distinct Universes of Discourse: The first is that in which H and S belong; the second, the one in which Paul worked, is properly embedded within the first. 1.4 Malagasy is not unique with regard to the notion of Speaker’s Degree of Commitment to the Action/Truth of P, the propositional content. Thus, the Distal vs. non-Distal opposition, as proposed in Langacker (1975), is also quite apparent in both English and French: (4a) (4b) (5a) (5b)
Yes, Yes, Oui, Oui,
I will come! I am coming! je viendrai ! je viens!
(4a) and (5a) with the appropriate future tense sound more non-committal than (4b) and (5b), which are more imminent. (6a) John said that the earth was flat. (6b) John said that the earth is flat. In (6a), the Speaker does not commit him-/herself to the truth of the embedded statement; s/he is merely reporting John’s view. In (6b), on the other hand, s/he is committing him/-herself personally. This is the traditional distinction between a de re vs. a de ditto interpretation. 1.5
With respect to Speaker Perspective and Degree of Commitment then, Malagasy, an Austronesian language, does not seem to differ greatly from English and French, two Indo-European languages, and this despite the fact that Malagasy presents many properties which otherwise are not very common in the world’s languages. Thus among other characteristics, as first noted in Keenan (1972), its basic word order is VOS (Verb-Object-Subject), and (as shown in Randriamasimanana (1986)) a Manipulative Causative construction like John broke the vase in Malagasy does not entail that ‘the vase was actually broken’. It is significant, therefore, that a language like Malagasy should fit into the framework to be developed in this paper.
196
C. Randriamasimanana / Tense/aspect and displacement
1.6
All of the above suggests a type of linguistic description integrating relevant features of the outside Situation, the ‘etic’world, and the propositional content (P) within the clause/sentence. Since a Situation involves many more elements than can possibly be controlled in a short paper of this size, I will confine myself to the concept of Displacement and Speaker Perspective, and more specifically to their interaction, in simple, declarative sentences of English, French, and Malagasy. 1.7 In order to avoid confusion, the following symbols, abbreviations, and conventions will be adopted: P for propositional content, p for progressive aspect; A for action; = for ‘equivalent to’; T for real, etic time, and T, for Time of Utterance; t for tense or aspect of a linguistic system; S for speaker, H for hearer, and Su for ‘subject of a sentence’. In general, all words with a capital letter initial refer to the object in the real world, whereas those with a lower case initial refer to a particular linguistic code, i.e. that of English, French, or Malagasy. Furthermore, I will assume the definition of aspect proposed in Comrie (1976).
2. The concept of Displacement 2.1 If we consider etic Time to be made up of a basic sequence of at least three frames ordered from left to right with Speaker S facing towards the. right, then we can say that the Present, or T,, represents the frame in which the Speaker is at the Time of Utterance; the one behind the Speaker will symbolize the Past, or T,, and the one in front of the Speaker, the Future, or T,. Now, if the Speaker’s Here and Now, i.e. Present, coincides with Speaker’s -Time of Utterance as one point in Time with another, the Speaker is more likely than not to use the English present tense in the progressive aspect. In such a case, we would claim that there is no Displacement since there is a juxtaposition of T,, Time of Utterance, and the time denoted by tense/aspect. (7a) I am working now. (where T, = tl) (7b) John is working now. (where T, = ti) There is Displacement whenever Speakers escape from the frame in which they find themselves at the Time of Utterance. They can do this, either Backward or
C. Randriamasimanana / Tense/aspect and displacement
191
Forward in Time, so to speak: In both cases, there is no longer a juxtaposition of Time of Utterance and the time represented in the tense/aspect used. Compare : (8a) I would like to tell you about this. (tz + t, = T,) (8b) I just wanted to tell you about this. (tz = T,) where S utters that P when s/he wants to show deference toward H, and where S uses a past tense as in (8b) or a combination of a past tense and a future tense as in (8a), to express a Present wish. On the other hand, there exist sentences like: (9) You have been drinking again! where S utters that P (for example, when a woman sees her man toiling his way back home, drunk, and where the Context makes it quite evident that the drinking is over). Apparently S wants a confrontation with H, and therefore uses a present perfect in the progressive to describe a Past action. In (8) and (9) we have clear cases of Displacement. 2.2 In French, S can have recourse to the syntactically equivalent form &we en train de + verb (‘to be in the process of + verb): (10) Je suis en train de travailler. I am in process of work
(ti =T,)
to denote emphatically that there is a juxtaposition of his/her Time of Utterance and the time indicated by the tense/aspect of the verb in order to make it clear to someone who is asking for some favor that ‘S is busy right now’. In other words, (10) can be an indirect refusal for granting H the favor s/he is requesting. Also, similar to (8), we have: (11 a) Je voudrais I would-like (1 lb) Je voulais wanted
seulement t’ en parler. only you of-it speak parler seulement t’ en
or even, the equivalent of (9): (12) Mais, tu bois encore, ma parole! but you drink still my word
(tz + t, = T,)
198
C. Randriamasimanana / Tense/aspect and displacement
where, for example, H had stopped drinking previously but later resumed his bad habit. At this stage, it should be noted that the normal, nonemphatic way of rendering (7a) in French is something like Je travaille maintenant -literally: ‘I work now’- without the aspectual2tre en train de. But (11) and (12) can be used in exactly the same context as (8) and (9) of English, respectively. 2.3 In Malagasy, the same situation obtains: aho (13) Mbola eto ampanaovana asa I still here in-process-of-doing work ‘Well, I am in the middle of something.’
@! (tr =T,) particle
Just like (10) in French, (13) is quite emphatic in that S wants to underline the fact that there is a complete coincidence of Time of Utterance and the tense/ aspect used in the sentence, by using eto ‘Here, Near-the-Speaker’ (See Randriamasimanana (1984) for the distinction between eto ‘Here, Near-theSpeaker’ and eo ‘Here, Near-the-Hearer’). S very emphatically states that s/he is in the process of doing something, thereby implying that at T,, Time of Utterance, there is absolutely no time to do anything else but that which s/he has been doing. As a consequence of this, S cannot do whatever is being requested of him/her. On the other hand, as in (S), (9), (lo), and (11) above, the following is also possible : (14a) Saika hilaza zavatra momba io fotsiny aho. about this only I Almost will-say thing (14b) Saika nilaza zavatra momba io fotsiny aho. said ‘I just wanted to tell you this.’
(t, = T,)
Here, both the future and the past tenses, along with the time adverb saika ‘almost’, are quite acceptable under exactly the same circumstances as in the other two languages. Likewise, (15) Mbola misotro taoka foana i tena manko! drink still .booze always deictic you particle ‘You scoundrel, you are still drinking!’
(tr = T,)
compares with English (9) or French (12). Although it is quite evident that at the Time of Utterance, which is also the Time of Confrontation between S and H, H has already finished drinking, S uses the present tense.
C. Randriamasimanana / Tense/aspect and displacement
199
2.4
It appears, therefore, on the evidence in (9), (12) and (15), that S can use the tense system of a natural language to decrease the psychosocial distance between H and S in order to provoke a Confrontation between them, just as it is possible for S, as in (S), (11) and (14), to increase the distance between H and S to avoid a potential Confrontation. The crucial parameter at work here is Displacement: S is in control of his/her own Here and Now, which S moves around, nearer to (up to complete juxtaposition with) or farther away from that of H. The unmarked Situation appears to be delimited by the Speaker’s Here and Now. However, the delimitation of the latter in English is different from what it is in French and Malagasy. English distinguishes between a Strict Here and Now, where it uses the progressive form, as in (7) or (16b), and a non-strict Here and Now, such as in (16a): (16a) I work. (16b) I am working. As indicated earlier and as seen in (10) for French and (13) for Malagasy, the equivalent expressions for the progressive form in those two languages can only be used emphatically. If Speakers do not wish to be emphatic, they will have to use the corresponding non-progressive forms. (But see section 3.5 for a different function of the &tre-en-train-de + verb phrase in French and Malagasy; here I am confining myself to its use as a pretext for S not to grant H the requested favor.) 2.5 Now, since the actual ordered sequence of frames - like Time - is strictly speaking a continuum, S has to set up dividing lines between the frame of Time in which s/he locates him-/herself and what occurs Before and After. In other words, S may consider the Present as a period or stretch of Time of variable width. And it is only with reference to these dividing lines that one can speak of Displacement, i.e. when S ‘goes’ beyond the frontiers of his/her own Here and Now, so to speak. There are some almost clear-cut cases, where S refers to a unit the contours of which are relatively salient: (17) Have you seen John this morning/month? (18) Did you see John at 10 o’clock/yesterday?
(tr = T,-T,) (tz = T,)
200
C. Randriamasimanana 1 Tense/aspect and displacement
In (17), where - symbolizes Duration, it must be the case that S considers T, to be part of the Time period expressed by t,, whereas in (18), it must be the case that S views his/her own T, to be in no way part of the period referred to by t,. However, if the Speaker’s P specifies a precise moment by using locutions like this morning, S’s perspective is crucial since the latter can say either (19a) or (19b) below: (19a) 1 didn’t get home till 10 this morning. (tz =T,) (19b) I didn’t get home till 10 last night. (t,=T,) (19~) *I haven’t gotten home till 10 this morning. but not the (19~) version, so that it can be said that the contours of S’s Present frame of reference are not always objectively nor syntagmatically determinable. 2.6 French and Malagasy do not possess two contrastive Past tenses of the type illustrated in (17) and (18), but both show exactly the same phenomenon as the one seen in (19a-c) : (20a) Je ne suis pas rentr6. avant 10 heures ce matin. (tz = T,) this morning I not am not returned before 10 (20b) Je ne suis pas rentrk avant 10 heures 1B nuit dernikre: the night last (20~) *Je ne rentre pas avant 10 heures ce matin. (tl = T2) return ‘I didn’t get back home till ten in the morning.’ antrano aho raha tsy t-amin’ (21a) Tsy tafa-verina t-ato not past-at not perf-return past-here home I if ny folo ora atoandro. the ten hour morning ‘I didn’t get back home till ten in the morning.’ (21b) Tsy tafa-verina t-ato antrano aho raha tsy t-amin’ not past-at not perf-return past-here home I if ny folo ora alina omaly. the ten hour night yesterday antrano aho raha tsy 0-amin’ (21~) *Tsy m-iverina 0-ato not pres-at not pres-return pres-here home I if ny folo ora atoandro/alina omaly. the ten hour morning/night yesterday
C. Randriamasimanana / Tense/aspect and displacement
201
In (21a) and (21b), we have a perfective aspect marker, along with the past tense t- on both prepositions in the sentence. In (21~) the present tense is used, along with the O-present tense marker on the same prepositions. The result is that (21~) exactly like (20~) in French, is irretrievably ungrammatical and unacceptable in the intended reading, i.e. ‘I didn’t get home till 10 o’clock this morning/last night’. The only meaning that could be assigned to it is either ‘I will be back home at 10 in the morning/at night’ or ‘I am usually back home at 10 in the morning/at night’ for the first portion of the sentence, whereas the part including omaly is not interpretable at all. What (20) and (21) suggest is that, although neither French nor Malagasy have the preterite-perfect distinction, there is a cut-off point between the Past and the Present in those two languages. In the case of French, the difference between (20a), (20b) and (20~) is captured by the use of two tenses (passC compos2 vs. p&sent), and that between (21a), (21b) and (21~) in Malagasy by the use in the first two sequences of the perfective aspect marker tufa- as opposed to the simple present m- in the last example. Apparently, in Malagasy, as will be explained below in section 3.1 (b), Speaker S identifies his/her Time of Utterance with the middle T, i.e. T, as opposed to T, and T, of {T2.. .T, . . .T,}, and as a consequence, can only establish an Anteriority-Posteriority type of relationship between the different points in the continuum of Time; hence the shift from the utilization of tense to that of aspect. 3. Speaker Commitment 3.1 Speaker S can choose to relate to Events in the real world, in at least two different ways. (a) S can view Event 1, which is taking place Now at T,, separately from Event 2, Before T,, and separately from Event 3, After T,. There is no anteriority-posteriority tense relationship established between T,, T,, and T,, each being considered a fleeting moment; thus the simple present in: (22) Jane studies at/goes to the University of Hawaii.
represents a situation symbolized in the following manner:
202
C. Randriamasimanana / Tense/aspect and displacement
where S effects a Displacement from T,, Time of Utterance, and we obtain Iterative or Habitual Action. The question remains open as to whether at T,, Time of Utterance, subject Su (Jane in (22)) was actually studying or going to the University Hawaii. This is one of two possibilities, since an inclusive as well as exclusive interpretation can apply to T, of (22). Exactly the same situation obtains in French and Malagasy :
an the of an
(23a) Jeanne etudie a 1’Universite d’Hawaii. ‘Jane studies at the Universityof Hawaii.’ (23b) Jeanne va a Wniversiti: d’Hawaii. ‘Jane goes to the University of Hawaii.’ Hawaii i (24) Mianatra ao amin’ ny Oniversite-n’ i Jeanne. studies there at the University of deictic Hawaii deictic Jane (23) as well as (24) just like (22) allow an inclusive and an. exclusive interpretation depending on whether at the Time of Utterance T,, Su is or is not doing the Action denoted by the verb. This contrasts with: (253 Jane is going to the University of Hawaii.
(ti =T,)
to which only the inclusive interpretation can be made to apply, at least, in the absence of further specification by S in P and the Context. But, if S states a period of Time which clearly and explicitly encompasses more than just the Time of Utterance as in: (26) Jane is going to the University of Hawaii this year. then P can only receive an exclusive interpretation: in saying (26), S does not necessarily commit him-/herself to the idea that at T,, Su is going to the University of Hawaii. In short, we have {T, . . . (T,) . . . T,}, where the parentheses denote optionality. (bj The other possibility for S is to envisage the abovementioned Events to which s/he wants to relate by having no Displacement, i.e. remaining within the confines of his/her Here and Now, and identifying his/her T,, Time of Utterance, with T, of {T, . . .(T,).. .T,}, where T, is the Past, T, the Future, and T, the Present. In. so doing, S establishes an Anteriority-Posteriority relationship between T, and T,, T:*being left out, since S no longer has the status of an Outside Observer: s/he views the Event from within, so to speak. : Thus, in: I
(27a) Jane has been going to the Univer$y for two years. (27b) Jane has been going to the University since 1981.
C. Randriamasimanana / Tense/aspect and displacement
203
S effects no Displacement. S/he identifies his/her Time of Utterance with T, since the perfect + progressive in (27a,b) refers to some action whose starting point is in the Past (hence the use of the perfect), but which is Durative (hence the progressive form), and therefore, continuing into the Future. However, (27a,b) does not entail that Su is doing the action at Time T,, given the specification for two years/since 1981, which proves that T, as such is left out of consideration. , In French, (27a,b) is rendered by (28a,b), to which is added a depuis phrase, marking either a Duration or a Starting Point. (28a) Jeanne Ctudie a 1’Universitt depuis deux ans. (Duration) ‘Jane studies at the University for two years.’ (28b) Jeanne ttudie a 1’Universite depuis 1981. (Inception) since S effects no Displacement but empathizes with the referent of Su, the subject of the clause -along the lines suggested in Kuno (1977)- and lives through Time, from the inside. Only an exclusive interpretation is possible: it is not the case that ‘Jane started studying at the University in 1981, and since then, without any break whatsoever, has been studying through the Time of Utterance into the Future’. as would be the case in: (29a) I have been working since 2 o’clock. (29b) *I have worked since 2 o’clock. (same meaning as (29a)) However, in both (27a,b) and (29a,b), a connection has been built between the Past and the Speaker’s Here and Now, which at one stage coincides with the Present (excluded from consideration) but which is also a permanent Future (compare this with the situation described in section 3.5). This fits into the internal Perspective view adopted by S, which explains the obligatoriness of the progressive in (29a,b) if the Action is still ongoing at the Time of Utterance. The language which most dramatically proves the point just made is Malagasy, with its use of the past tense to indicate the inception of the Action and the future tense to signal its continuation into the Future. ho roa taona izao i Jeanne no nianatra tao. (30) Efa already fut two years to-now deictic Jane part past-study there First, we have focus, hence fronting, on the duration phrase as well as the marked word order subject-verb, the two being separated by the particle no. This shows that the emphasis is on the Duration. Second, efa ‘already’ marks the perfective aspect, whereas ho indicates the Future, and n of the verb nianatra ‘studied’ and t of tao ‘past-there’ signal the Past. The use of
204
C. Randriamasimanana 1 Tense/aspect and displacement
the perfective aspect highlights the fact that the Speaker does not effect a Displacement, although s/he ignores his/her T,, Time of utterance, the focus being on the relationship between the Past and the Future. 3.2 When, instead of concentrating on the relationship between the Past and the Future, S leaves the latter out and considers only the connection between the Past and the Present, i.e. T, and T, in {T2 . ..(T.) . . . T,}, we have a Resultative. (31) I have seen Jane. (32) J’ai vu Jeanne. ‘I have seen Jane.’ (33) .Nahita an’ i Jeanne aho. past-see prep deictic Jane I In (31), (32) and (33), the action is viewed as belonging in the Past, but its results are felt at the Time of Utterance. This is a case of Present relevance of a Past action: Displacement is not involved. 3.3 If Speaker S ignores the Past to focus on the relationship between the Present and the Future, we can have a case of Imminent Future, which S can use to signal his Degree of Commitment to the truth of P. (34a) Jane is having a baby. (34b) Jane will have a baby. (34a) commits S to the idea that ‘Jane is at least pregnant’, and that the ‘arrival is imminent’. With (34b), on the other hand, it might well be that ‘Jane is not even pregnant’, but that ‘she is only inherently capable of bearing a child’. As in the case of the Past, where it was shown in sections 2.5 and 2.6 that there is a demarcation line between Past and Present, there also seems to be a cut-off point between Present and Future. Not all native speakers of English accept (35) to signify something like ‘It will rain tomorrow’. (35) ?It is raining’tomorrow. If so, this would substantiate the claim that a cut-off point really exists between T, and T,. And we will speak of Displacement just in case Speaker S \
C. Randriamasimanana / Tense/aspect and displacement
205
crosses the frontier between the two, i.e. uses a present tense to signal a Future Action. That is precisely what S does in: (36) I am leaving for New York tomorrow. If one and the same Speaker were to reject (35) but accept (36), then the present theory would receive ample support in English. As far as French is concerned, we already saw how in (20~) S uses a present tense to indicate a Past Action; this is acceptable only if the present tense is made to refer to a Future Action instead. Thus (~OC),Je ne rentre pas avant 10 heures ce matin, is quite good in the reading“1 intend to come back at 10 this morning’. Likewise, in Malagasy, (21c), where S uses a present tense to denote a Past Action, is now made to refer to a Future Action, and as a result, means ‘I do not intend to come back before 10 this morning’. The fact that in both French and Malagasy, it is possible to use the simple (non-progressive) present tense to denote the Future strongly suggests that Displacement is involved: (37) Je vois I see (38) Mahita see
ce gars-la demain. this guy deictic tomorrow an’ io ranamana io aho rahampitso. tomorrow prep this guy this I
3.4 The clearest case of Displacement in all three languages under consideration and the one traditionally recognized as such is the situation associated with the use of the historical present to locate a Past ‘Event: (39) Here Joan of Arc goes to Chinon. (40) Ici Jeanne d’Arc se rend a Chinon. to Chinon here Jane of .Arc goes (41) Mankany Chinon eto i Jeanne d’Arc. of Arc Chinon here deic. Jane goes-to Normally, T,, Time of Utterance of Speaker S, would coincide with T, of {T, . . . T I . . . T3} since that is S’s own vantage point. Here, however, S espouses the perspective inherent in T,, which is turned into a fictitious T,. 3.5 Another
clear-cut
case of Displacement
involving
the Future
and which
206
C. Randriamasimanana 1 Tense/aspect and displacement
triggers a Confrontation is illustrated in the following examples, where Speaker S uses a present tense to denote a Future action: (42) I am not answering (43) Je ne r&ponds pas I not answer not (44a) ?Tsy m-amaly not present-answer (44b) Tsy h-amaly not future-answer
questions! aux questions! to-the questions fanontaniana aho! question I fanontaniana aho! question I
All of the above utterances have a rather violent impact on H, and S has to really want to make H feel that S is the master of the situation to use this type of statement. In English and French, (42) and (43) are appropriate examples when S turns out to be a VIP coming out of a conference room, for example, and journalists, who have been waiting outdoors, rush towards him, bombarding him with questions. In Malagasy, S will usually employ (44b), with the future instead of the present tense, unless S deliberately chooses to be overtly aggressive to the point of being rude toward H. Furthermore sentence (44a) requires a special intonation. In all three languages, the Speaker uses a present tense to express his/her Degree of Commitment to a Future course of action. To see that this is indeed so, one can use the literal equivalents of the progressive in French and Malagasy, in which case there is a radical change in meaning: (45) Je ne suis pas en train de repondre aux I not amnot in-the-process of answer to-the (46) Tsy eo/*eto ampamaliana fanontaniana not here in-process-of-answering questions
questions! questions aho (io)! I (this)
(45) and (46) signify something like ‘Here, I am not answering questions’, with the implication that the Speaker and the Hearer are watching a slide or looking at a picture showing the Speaker, who is explaining what he was trying to do when the picture was taken. In other words, this type of Displacement is necessary for (45) and (46), with the literal translation of ‘in the process of V+ ing’, to be used. Also, notice the use of eo ‘Here, Near-the-Hearer’, as opposed to eto ‘Here, Near-the-Speaker’: The sentence with eto is irretrievably ungrammatical and unacceptable, whereas the grammaticality and acceptability of the one .with eo is enhanced by the presence of the subject of the higher clause io ‘this’, yielding the reading ‘This is when I was not in the process of <\~* answering questions’. _ , ,/ L-_i
C. Randriamasimanana
1 Tense/aspect
and displacement
207
4. The overall framework 4.1
The overall framework which emerges from the above analyses is one in which Time flows from left to right, Speaker S in the unmarked case identifies his T,, Time of Utterance, with T, of (T, . . . T,...T,), and opposes T, to T, = Past and T, = Future. Furthermore, there is a demarcation line between T, and T,, on the one hand, and T, and T, on the other. When, in the simplest possible case, there is a straightforward correspondence between T, and the past tense used in a natural language, T, and the present tense, and T, and the future tense, respectively, and assuming that Speaker S identifies his Time of Utterance with T,, we obtain the basic tense/aspect system of a language like Malagasy. The word ‘basic’ here refers to the fact that Displacement is not involved.
If, however, the present tense, simple as in (37) or (38) or in the progressive as in (36), or the past tense as in (8b) or even a combination of past tense and future tense as in (8a), is used to denote the Future, we claim that Displacement is involved. The clearest case was illustrated by uses of the historical present in (39), (40) and (41): Speaker S adopts a Perspective which does not coincide with the one s/he would have, were s/he to view the same Event from the vantage point of T, or his/her actual Time of Utterance. 4.3 Displacement seems to fulfill two main functions: One is to enable Speaker S to be polite -as illustrated by (8a,b), (lla,b) and (14a,b)- so as to avoid a potential Confrontation with Hearer H; the other is to allow S to emphasize his/her Degree of Commitment to the Truth/Action of the propositional content as seen in (4a,b), (5a,b), (6a,b), (34a,b), (35), and (36). If we choose to describe the latter situation as Emphasis, then we obtain a Continuum the. two extremes of which are Politeness and Emphasis. In this short article, I have left out complex structures, but it is obvious from examples such as: (47) Don’t you think it is high time we left? (48) John said that people thought that he did want to go. that the two parameters we have isolated are at work. In (47), the Speaker and his/her companion have not left yet, although S uses the simple past tense in left as though the action had already taken place. In (48), we have a doubly
208
C. Randriamasimanana 1 Tense/aspect and displacement
embedded direct statement which>comprises the emphatic do/did, as in ‘I do want to go’. 4.4 The passage from absence to presence of Displacement is not an abrupt one. There is a transition, which is made explicit by reference to the concept of Speaker Perspective (as developed in sections 2.5, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4). Thus, for example in (17), the co-occurrence of the perfect have seen and the phrase this morning is possible only if Speaker S utters (17) within the time frame specified in the proposition. S cannot use this tense if s/he happens to make his/her statement in the afternoon subsequent to the relevant morning. In other words, the choice hinges crucially on whether S’s Time of Utterance is included or excluded from the time period specified in P. If S’s Time of Utterance falls outside the specified frame, then the relevant factor will be the relative distance between the two frames. Thus, in: (49) My brother has been working hard all afternoon and is now asleep on the sofa. it is quite possible that the Time of Utterance does not belong in the period referred to as ‘all afternoon’, but apparently if T, is not too distant from that time frame, many native speakers still accept (49). This underlines the fact that besides clear-cut zones like Past, Present, and Future, there are fuzzy areas falling between Past and Present, and Present and Future, respectively. Whether a fuzzy area is assigned to the Past or Future rather than the Present depends on Speaker Perspective. 4.5 One advantage of the frame of analysis proposed in this paper is the possibility of integrating tense and aspect. Given{T, . . .(T,) . . .T,}, as shown at the end of section 3.1(a), the basic intuition behind,aspect can be captured in a very simple and straightforward manner by stating that in the case of an aspectual system, Speaker S has to identify his/her own Time of Utterance with T,, and must leave it out of consideration since herewe automatically have a case of absence of Displacement (hence, thesimple Anterior-Posterior dichotomy), whereas in the-case of a tense system, Speaker S can identify Time of Utterance with T,, although this is not mandatory, as shown in section 3.1. Furthermore, our scheme makes the claim that in the world’s languages, aspect is more basic than tense since in an aspectual. system there is no Displacement, whereas in a tense system Displacement is optional. In other words, the framework developed here predicts that children acquiring their
C. Randriamasimanana / Tense/aspect and displacement
209
native tongues are likely to learn aspectual forms of their languages earlier than the tense system, precisely because,they do not need to be formal thinkers, capable of adopting an Outside Observer’s Perspective at that early stage of their cognitive development. 4.6 Last but not least, a terminological explanation is in order to stress the fact that Emphasis as used in this article describes a Situation where Speaker S refers to some Entity/Event which is not locatable within his/her own Here and Now, and does so as if it were present there. This is the reverse of Politeness in that Speaker S refers to some Entity/Event locatable in his/her own Here and Now, and does so as if it were not present there. In other words, Emphasis is just a cover term for a whole range of phenomena which includes Vividness (see the historical present in section 3.4) and Speaker’s Degree of Commitment (see @a,b), (9), (1 la,b), (12) (14a,b), and (15), as explained in section 2.4). Furthermore, Here and Now describes not merely physical location, but also and essentially the psychosocial frame in which Speakers consider themselves to be. (This point is developed in Randriamasimanana (1984).) In this connection, as we saw in (7a) = (16b), (10) and (13) as well as (42) to (46) English allows its speakers to use a strict Here and Now frame - as evidenced by the use of the present tense in the progressive form - more readily than French and Malagasy to refer to their Time of Utterance; by contrast, those other two languages require Displacement for the use of the literal equivalents of ‘to be in the process of V+ing’ to be felicitous.
References Comrie, B., 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keenan, E., 1972. ‘Remarkable subjects in Malagasy’. In: C. Li, ed., Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press. pp. 247-301. Kuno, S., 1977. Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 627-672. Langacker, R., 1975. ‘Functional stratigraphy’. In: Papers from the Functionalism Parasession, Chicago Linguistic Society. pp. 351-397. Randriamasimanana, C., 1984. Articles, demonstratives and locatability in Malagasy. Working Papers in Linguistics 10: 131-151. Univerisity of Melbourne. Randriamasimanana, C., 1986. The causatives of Malagasy. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication 21, University of Hawaii Press, Hawaii.
11 (1987) 193-209
193
TENSE/ASPECT
AND THE CONCEPT
Charles RANDRIAMASIMANANA
OF DISPLACEMENT
*
A concept called Displacement is proposed which enables one to provide an adequate account of the basic as well as the non-basic uses of the tense/aspect system of a natural language. Displacement describes two types of situation: The first is one in which Speaker S refers to an Entity/Event present within his/her own Here and Now, and does so as if it was not there; the second is one where Speaker S refers to an Entity/Event absent from his/her own Here and Now, and yet does so as though it was present there. This yields a continuum the two extreme points of which are Politeness, at one end, and Emphasis, at the other; the corollary concept of Speaker Perspective mediates between the two.
1. Introductory remarks 1.1
The main purpose of the present paper is to propose a concept called Displacement, which interacts with another relevant parameter, Speaker Perspective, providing a principled and motivated account of the functioning of the basic and non-basic uses of the tense/aspect system of a natural language. 1.2 First, it appears that the concept of Speaker Perspective -with its corollary, Degree of Commitmentis indispensable in an adequate account of the deictic and tense/aspect systems of a number of Austronesian languages, including Malagasy, the westernmost branch of the Malayo-Polynesian family. Thus, Speaker S, who wants to greet his/her interlocutor in Malagasy, will have to encode the type of relationship he/she entertains with the other person. (la) Manao ahoana i dokotera? pres.-do how deictic doctor dokotera? (lb) Manao ahoana ny deictic * Author’s address: C. Randriamasimanana, Language Studies, University of Melbourne,
037%2166/87/$3.50
0
Linguistics Programme, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
1987, Elsevier Science Publishers
Dept. of Russian 3052.
B.V. (North-Holland)
and
194
C. Randriamasimanana 1 Tense/aspect and displacement
(lc) *Manao ahoana 0 dokotera? ‘How are you, Doctor?’ Both (la) and (lb) are polite ways for S to address the doctor, except that in one, the deictic i is used as opposed to ny in the other. The sentence in (lc) is ungrammatical and unacceptable if the deictic is left out. Now, the use of i entails that S and Hearer H entertain a relatively close relationship; in other words, the psychosocial distance is minimal between S and H. The use of ny signifies that the psychosocial distance is maximal, so much so in fact that (lb) is often used jokingly to point out that H is so high on the social hierarchy that s/he is hardly visible from where S stands. To put it slightly differently, s/he is out of sight! 1.3 Second, the notion of Degree of Commitment is necessary if one is to account for the following types of construction in Malagasy: (2a) Mianatra tsara pres.-study well (2b) Hoe mianatra tsara quote (2c) Izany mianatra tsara that (2d) Ity mianatra tsara this (2e) 10 mianatra tsara this (3a) Mianatra tsara (3b) Mianatra tsara
i Paoly. deictic Paul i Paoly. izany i Paoly. that ity i Paoly. this io i Paoly. this i Paoly io. this io i Paoly. this
(2a) means that ‘Paul studies well’. The versions in (2b)-(2e) also have this reading, but in addition (2b) says that Speaker S is merely quoting from someone else and that, as a consequence, s/he should not be held personally responsible for the statement if the latter should turn out to be untrue. The (2~) version implies that Speaker S is not quite positive about his/her statement, that Hearer H has within his/her capacity the means to verify this on his/her own, and that ultimately s/he will have to decide for her-/himself whether s/he should believe S’s statement or not. The (2d) version implicates S more than the others since s/he is ready to testify to the truth of the statement. Finally, (2e) introduces the idea of mutual verifiability in that both H and S share a common Here and Now or share some common knowledge.
C. Randriamasimanana / Tense/aspect and displacement
195
As for (3a) and (3b), the use of the deictic io, either following or preceding the subject of the sentence, indicates that H and S are observing Paul or typically looking at a picture showing Paul working. In the latter case, there are two distinct Universes of Discourse: The first is that in which H and S belong; the second, the one in which Paul worked, is properly embedded within the first. 1.4 Malagasy is not unique with regard to the notion of Speaker’s Degree of Commitment to the Action/Truth of P, the propositional content. Thus, the Distal vs. non-Distal opposition, as proposed in Langacker (1975), is also quite apparent in both English and French: (4a) (4b) (5a) (5b)
Yes, Yes, Oui, Oui,
I will come! I am coming! je viendrai ! je viens!
(4a) and (5a) with the appropriate future tense sound more non-committal than (4b) and (5b), which are more imminent. (6a) John said that the earth was flat. (6b) John said that the earth is flat. In (6a), the Speaker does not commit him-/herself to the truth of the embedded statement; s/he is merely reporting John’s view. In (6b), on the other hand, s/he is committing him/-herself personally. This is the traditional distinction between a de re vs. a de ditto interpretation. 1.5
With respect to Speaker Perspective and Degree of Commitment then, Malagasy, an Austronesian language, does not seem to differ greatly from English and French, two Indo-European languages, and this despite the fact that Malagasy presents many properties which otherwise are not very common in the world’s languages. Thus among other characteristics, as first noted in Keenan (1972), its basic word order is VOS (Verb-Object-Subject), and (as shown in Randriamasimanana (1986)) a Manipulative Causative construction like John broke the vase in Malagasy does not entail that ‘the vase was actually broken’. It is significant, therefore, that a language like Malagasy should fit into the framework to be developed in this paper.
196
C. Randriamasimanana / Tense/aspect and displacement
1.6
All of the above suggests a type of linguistic description integrating relevant features of the outside Situation, the ‘etic’world, and the propositional content (P) within the clause/sentence. Since a Situation involves many more elements than can possibly be controlled in a short paper of this size, I will confine myself to the concept of Displacement and Speaker Perspective, and more specifically to their interaction, in simple, declarative sentences of English, French, and Malagasy. 1.7 In order to avoid confusion, the following symbols, abbreviations, and conventions will be adopted: P for propositional content, p for progressive aspect; A for action; = for ‘equivalent to’; T for real, etic time, and T, for Time of Utterance; t for tense or aspect of a linguistic system; S for speaker, H for hearer, and Su for ‘subject of a sentence’. In general, all words with a capital letter initial refer to the object in the real world, whereas those with a lower case initial refer to a particular linguistic code, i.e. that of English, French, or Malagasy. Furthermore, I will assume the definition of aspect proposed in Comrie (1976).
2. The concept of Displacement 2.1 If we consider etic Time to be made up of a basic sequence of at least three frames ordered from left to right with Speaker S facing towards the. right, then we can say that the Present, or T,, represents the frame in which the Speaker is at the Time of Utterance; the one behind the Speaker will symbolize the Past, or T,, and the one in front of the Speaker, the Future, or T,. Now, if the Speaker’s Here and Now, i.e. Present, coincides with Speaker’s -Time of Utterance as one point in Time with another, the Speaker is more likely than not to use the English present tense in the progressive aspect. In such a case, we would claim that there is no Displacement since there is a juxtaposition of T,, Time of Utterance, and the time denoted by tense/aspect. (7a) I am working now. (where T, = tl) (7b) John is working now. (where T, = ti) There is Displacement whenever Speakers escape from the frame in which they find themselves at the Time of Utterance. They can do this, either Backward or
C. Randriamasimanana / Tense/aspect and displacement
191
Forward in Time, so to speak: In both cases, there is no longer a juxtaposition of Time of Utterance and the time represented in the tense/aspect used. Compare : (8a) I would like to tell you about this. (tz + t, = T,) (8b) I just wanted to tell you about this. (tz = T,) where S utters that P when s/he wants to show deference toward H, and where S uses a past tense as in (8b) or a combination of a past tense and a future tense as in (8a), to express a Present wish. On the other hand, there exist sentences like: (9) You have been drinking again! where S utters that P (for example, when a woman sees her man toiling his way back home, drunk, and where the Context makes it quite evident that the drinking is over). Apparently S wants a confrontation with H, and therefore uses a present perfect in the progressive to describe a Past action. In (8) and (9) we have clear cases of Displacement. 2.2 In French, S can have recourse to the syntactically equivalent form &we en train de + verb (‘to be in the process of + verb): (10) Je suis en train de travailler. I am in process of work
(ti =T,)
to denote emphatically that there is a juxtaposition of his/her Time of Utterance and the time indicated by the tense/aspect of the verb in order to make it clear to someone who is asking for some favor that ‘S is busy right now’. In other words, (10) can be an indirect refusal for granting H the favor s/he is requesting. Also, similar to (8), we have: (11 a) Je voudrais I would-like (1 lb) Je voulais wanted
seulement t’ en parler. only you of-it speak parler seulement t’ en
or even, the equivalent of (9): (12) Mais, tu bois encore, ma parole! but you drink still my word
(tz + t, = T,)
198
C. Randriamasimanana / Tense/aspect and displacement
where, for example, H had stopped drinking previously but later resumed his bad habit. At this stage, it should be noted that the normal, nonemphatic way of rendering (7a) in French is something like Je travaille maintenant -literally: ‘I work now’- without the aspectual2tre en train de. But (11) and (12) can be used in exactly the same context as (8) and (9) of English, respectively. 2.3 In Malagasy, the same situation obtains: aho (13) Mbola eto ampanaovana asa I still here in-process-of-doing work ‘Well, I am in the middle of something.’
@! (tr =T,) particle
Just like (10) in French, (13) is quite emphatic in that S wants to underline the fact that there is a complete coincidence of Time of Utterance and the tense/ aspect used in the sentence, by using eto ‘Here, Near-the-Speaker’ (See Randriamasimanana (1984) for the distinction between eto ‘Here, Near-theSpeaker’ and eo ‘Here, Near-the-Hearer’). S very emphatically states that s/he is in the process of doing something, thereby implying that at T,, Time of Utterance, there is absolutely no time to do anything else but that which s/he has been doing. As a consequence of this, S cannot do whatever is being requested of him/her. On the other hand, as in (S), (9), (lo), and (11) above, the following is also possible : (14a) Saika hilaza zavatra momba io fotsiny aho. about this only I Almost will-say thing (14b) Saika nilaza zavatra momba io fotsiny aho. said ‘I just wanted to tell you this.’
(t, = T,)
Here, both the future and the past tenses, along with the time adverb saika ‘almost’, are quite acceptable under exactly the same circumstances as in the other two languages. Likewise, (15) Mbola misotro taoka foana i tena manko! drink still .booze always deictic you particle ‘You scoundrel, you are still drinking!’
(tr = T,)
compares with English (9) or French (12). Although it is quite evident that at the Time of Utterance, which is also the Time of Confrontation between S and H, H has already finished drinking, S uses the present tense.
C. Randriamasimanana / Tense/aspect and displacement
199
2.4
It appears, therefore, on the evidence in (9), (12) and (15), that S can use the tense system of a natural language to decrease the psychosocial distance between H and S in order to provoke a Confrontation between them, just as it is possible for S, as in (S), (11) and (14), to increase the distance between H and S to avoid a potential Confrontation. The crucial parameter at work here is Displacement: S is in control of his/her own Here and Now, which S moves around, nearer to (up to complete juxtaposition with) or farther away from that of H. The unmarked Situation appears to be delimited by the Speaker’s Here and Now. However, the delimitation of the latter in English is different from what it is in French and Malagasy. English distinguishes between a Strict Here and Now, where it uses the progressive form, as in (7) or (16b), and a non-strict Here and Now, such as in (16a): (16a) I work. (16b) I am working. As indicated earlier and as seen in (10) for French and (13) for Malagasy, the equivalent expressions for the progressive form in those two languages can only be used emphatically. If Speakers do not wish to be emphatic, they will have to use the corresponding non-progressive forms. (But see section 3.5 for a different function of the &tre-en-train-de + verb phrase in French and Malagasy; here I am confining myself to its use as a pretext for S not to grant H the requested favor.) 2.5 Now, since the actual ordered sequence of frames - like Time - is strictly speaking a continuum, S has to set up dividing lines between the frame of Time in which s/he locates him-/herself and what occurs Before and After. In other words, S may consider the Present as a period or stretch of Time of variable width. And it is only with reference to these dividing lines that one can speak of Displacement, i.e. when S ‘goes’ beyond the frontiers of his/her own Here and Now, so to speak. There are some almost clear-cut cases, where S refers to a unit the contours of which are relatively salient: (17) Have you seen John this morning/month? (18) Did you see John at 10 o’clock/yesterday?
(tr = T,-T,) (tz = T,)
200
C. Randriamasimanana 1 Tense/aspect and displacement
In (17), where - symbolizes Duration, it must be the case that S considers T, to be part of the Time period expressed by t,, whereas in (18), it must be the case that S views his/her own T, to be in no way part of the period referred to by t,. However, if the Speaker’s P specifies a precise moment by using locutions like this morning, S’s perspective is crucial since the latter can say either (19a) or (19b) below: (19a) 1 didn’t get home till 10 this morning. (tz =T,) (19b) I didn’t get home till 10 last night. (t,=T,) (19~) *I haven’t gotten home till 10 this morning. but not the (19~) version, so that it can be said that the contours of S’s Present frame of reference are not always objectively nor syntagmatically determinable. 2.6 French and Malagasy do not possess two contrastive Past tenses of the type illustrated in (17) and (18), but both show exactly the same phenomenon as the one seen in (19a-c) : (20a) Je ne suis pas rentr6. avant 10 heures ce matin. (tz = T,) this morning I not am not returned before 10 (20b) Je ne suis pas rentrk avant 10 heures 1B nuit dernikre: the night last (20~) *Je ne rentre pas avant 10 heures ce matin. (tl = T2) return ‘I didn’t get back home till ten in the morning.’ antrano aho raha tsy t-amin’ (21a) Tsy tafa-verina t-ato not past-at not perf-return past-here home I if ny folo ora atoandro. the ten hour morning ‘I didn’t get back home till ten in the morning.’ (21b) Tsy tafa-verina t-ato antrano aho raha tsy t-amin’ not past-at not perf-return past-here home I if ny folo ora alina omaly. the ten hour night yesterday antrano aho raha tsy 0-amin’ (21~) *Tsy m-iverina 0-ato not pres-at not pres-return pres-here home I if ny folo ora atoandro/alina omaly. the ten hour morning/night yesterday
C. Randriamasimanana / Tense/aspect and displacement
201
In (21a) and (21b), we have a perfective aspect marker, along with the past tense t- on both prepositions in the sentence. In (21~) the present tense is used, along with the O-present tense marker on the same prepositions. The result is that (21~) exactly like (20~) in French, is irretrievably ungrammatical and unacceptable in the intended reading, i.e. ‘I didn’t get home till 10 o’clock this morning/last night’. The only meaning that could be assigned to it is either ‘I will be back home at 10 in the morning/at night’ or ‘I am usually back home at 10 in the morning/at night’ for the first portion of the sentence, whereas the part including omaly is not interpretable at all. What (20) and (21) suggest is that, although neither French nor Malagasy have the preterite-perfect distinction, there is a cut-off point between the Past and the Present in those two languages. In the case of French, the difference between (20a), (20b) and (20~) is captured by the use of two tenses (passC compos2 vs. p&sent), and that between (21a), (21b) and (21~) in Malagasy by the use in the first two sequences of the perfective aspect marker tufa- as opposed to the simple present m- in the last example. Apparently, in Malagasy, as will be explained below in section 3.1 (b), Speaker S identifies his/her Time of Utterance with the middle T, i.e. T, as opposed to T, and T, of {T2.. .T, . . .T,}, and as a consequence, can only establish an Anteriority-Posteriority type of relationship between the different points in the continuum of Time; hence the shift from the utilization of tense to that of aspect. 3. Speaker Commitment 3.1 Speaker S can choose to relate to Events in the real world, in at least two different ways. (a) S can view Event 1, which is taking place Now at T,, separately from Event 2, Before T,, and separately from Event 3, After T,. There is no anteriority-posteriority tense relationship established between T,, T,, and T,, each being considered a fleeting moment; thus the simple present in: (22) Jane studies at/goes to the University of Hawaii.
represents a situation symbolized in the following manner:
202
C. Randriamasimanana / Tense/aspect and displacement
where S effects a Displacement from T,, Time of Utterance, and we obtain Iterative or Habitual Action. The question remains open as to whether at T,, Time of Utterance, subject Su (Jane in (22)) was actually studying or going to the University Hawaii. This is one of two possibilities, since an inclusive as well as exclusive interpretation can apply to T, of (22). Exactly the same situation obtains in French and Malagasy :
an the of an
(23a) Jeanne etudie a 1’Universite d’Hawaii. ‘Jane studies at the Universityof Hawaii.’ (23b) Jeanne va a Wniversiti: d’Hawaii. ‘Jane goes to the University of Hawaii.’ Hawaii i (24) Mianatra ao amin’ ny Oniversite-n’ i Jeanne. studies there at the University of deictic Hawaii deictic Jane (23) as well as (24) just like (22) allow an inclusive and an. exclusive interpretation depending on whether at the Time of Utterance T,, Su is or is not doing the Action denoted by the verb. This contrasts with: (253 Jane is going to the University of Hawaii.
(ti =T,)
to which only the inclusive interpretation can be made to apply, at least, in the absence of further specification by S in P and the Context. But, if S states a period of Time which clearly and explicitly encompasses more than just the Time of Utterance as in: (26) Jane is going to the University of Hawaii this year. then P can only receive an exclusive interpretation: in saying (26), S does not necessarily commit him-/herself to the idea that at T,, Su is going to the University of Hawaii. In short, we have {T, . . . (T,) . . . T,}, where the parentheses denote optionality. (bj The other possibility for S is to envisage the abovementioned Events to which s/he wants to relate by having no Displacement, i.e. remaining within the confines of his/her Here and Now, and identifying his/her T,, Time of Utterance, with T, of {T, . . .(T,).. .T,}, where T, is the Past, T, the Future, and T, the Present. In. so doing, S establishes an Anteriority-Posteriority relationship between T, and T,, T:*being left out, since S no longer has the status of an Outside Observer: s/he views the Event from within, so to speak. : Thus, in: I
(27a) Jane has been going to the Univer$y for two years. (27b) Jane has been going to the University since 1981.
C. Randriamasimanana / Tense/aspect and displacement
203
S effects no Displacement. S/he identifies his/her Time of Utterance with T, since the perfect + progressive in (27a,b) refers to some action whose starting point is in the Past (hence the use of the perfect), but which is Durative (hence the progressive form), and therefore, continuing into the Future. However, (27a,b) does not entail that Su is doing the action at Time T,, given the specification for two years/since 1981, which proves that T, as such is left out of consideration. , In French, (27a,b) is rendered by (28a,b), to which is added a depuis phrase, marking either a Duration or a Starting Point. (28a) Jeanne Ctudie a 1’Universitt depuis deux ans. (Duration) ‘Jane studies at the University for two years.’ (28b) Jeanne ttudie a 1’Universite depuis 1981. (Inception) since S effects no Displacement but empathizes with the referent of Su, the subject of the clause -along the lines suggested in Kuno (1977)- and lives through Time, from the inside. Only an exclusive interpretation is possible: it is not the case that ‘Jane started studying at the University in 1981, and since then, without any break whatsoever, has been studying through the Time of Utterance into the Future’. as would be the case in: (29a) I have been working since 2 o’clock. (29b) *I have worked since 2 o’clock. (same meaning as (29a)) However, in both (27a,b) and (29a,b), a connection has been built between the Past and the Speaker’s Here and Now, which at one stage coincides with the Present (excluded from consideration) but which is also a permanent Future (compare this with the situation described in section 3.5). This fits into the internal Perspective view adopted by S, which explains the obligatoriness of the progressive in (29a,b) if the Action is still ongoing at the Time of Utterance. The language which most dramatically proves the point just made is Malagasy, with its use of the past tense to indicate the inception of the Action and the future tense to signal its continuation into the Future. ho roa taona izao i Jeanne no nianatra tao. (30) Efa already fut two years to-now deictic Jane part past-study there First, we have focus, hence fronting, on the duration phrase as well as the marked word order subject-verb, the two being separated by the particle no. This shows that the emphasis is on the Duration. Second, efa ‘already’ marks the perfective aspect, whereas ho indicates the Future, and n of the verb nianatra ‘studied’ and t of tao ‘past-there’ signal the Past. The use of
204
C. Randriamasimanana 1 Tense/aspect and displacement
the perfective aspect highlights the fact that the Speaker does not effect a Displacement, although s/he ignores his/her T,, Time of utterance, the focus being on the relationship between the Past and the Future. 3.2 When, instead of concentrating on the relationship between the Past and the Future, S leaves the latter out and considers only the connection between the Past and the Present, i.e. T, and T, in {T2 . ..(T.) . . . T,}, we have a Resultative. (31) I have seen Jane. (32) J’ai vu Jeanne. ‘I have seen Jane.’ (33) .Nahita an’ i Jeanne aho. past-see prep deictic Jane I In (31), (32) and (33), the action is viewed as belonging in the Past, but its results are felt at the Time of Utterance. This is a case of Present relevance of a Past action: Displacement is not involved. 3.3 If Speaker S ignores the Past to focus on the relationship between the Present and the Future, we can have a case of Imminent Future, which S can use to signal his Degree of Commitment to the truth of P. (34a) Jane is having a baby. (34b) Jane will have a baby. (34a) commits S to the idea that ‘Jane is at least pregnant’, and that the ‘arrival is imminent’. With (34b), on the other hand, it might well be that ‘Jane is not even pregnant’, but that ‘she is only inherently capable of bearing a child’. As in the case of the Past, where it was shown in sections 2.5 and 2.6 that there is a demarcation line between Past and Present, there also seems to be a cut-off point between Present and Future. Not all native speakers of English accept (35) to signify something like ‘It will rain tomorrow’. (35) ?It is raining’tomorrow. If so, this would substantiate the claim that a cut-off point really exists between T, and T,. And we will speak of Displacement just in case Speaker S \
C. Randriamasimanana / Tense/aspect and displacement
205
crosses the frontier between the two, i.e. uses a present tense to signal a Future Action. That is precisely what S does in: (36) I am leaving for New York tomorrow. If one and the same Speaker were to reject (35) but accept (36), then the present theory would receive ample support in English. As far as French is concerned, we already saw how in (20~) S uses a present tense to indicate a Past Action; this is acceptable only if the present tense is made to refer to a Future Action instead. Thus (~OC),Je ne rentre pas avant 10 heures ce matin, is quite good in the reading“1 intend to come back at 10 this morning’. Likewise, in Malagasy, (21c), where S uses a present tense to denote a Past Action, is now made to refer to a Future Action, and as a result, means ‘I do not intend to come back before 10 this morning’. The fact that in both French and Malagasy, it is possible to use the simple (non-progressive) present tense to denote the Future strongly suggests that Displacement is involved: (37) Je vois I see (38) Mahita see
ce gars-la demain. this guy deictic tomorrow an’ io ranamana io aho rahampitso. tomorrow prep this guy this I
3.4 The clearest case of Displacement in all three languages under consideration and the one traditionally recognized as such is the situation associated with the use of the historical present to locate a Past ‘Event: (39) Here Joan of Arc goes to Chinon. (40) Ici Jeanne d’Arc se rend a Chinon. to Chinon here Jane of .Arc goes (41) Mankany Chinon eto i Jeanne d’Arc. of Arc Chinon here deic. Jane goes-to Normally, T,, Time of Utterance of Speaker S, would coincide with T, of {T, . . . T I . . . T3} since that is S’s own vantage point. Here, however, S espouses the perspective inherent in T,, which is turned into a fictitious T,. 3.5 Another
clear-cut
case of Displacement
involving
the Future
and which
206
C. Randriamasimanana 1 Tense/aspect and displacement
triggers a Confrontation is illustrated in the following examples, where Speaker S uses a present tense to denote a Future action: (42) I am not answering (43) Je ne r&ponds pas I not answer not (44a) ?Tsy m-amaly not present-answer (44b) Tsy h-amaly not future-answer
questions! aux questions! to-the questions fanontaniana aho! question I fanontaniana aho! question I
All of the above utterances have a rather violent impact on H, and S has to really want to make H feel that S is the master of the situation to use this type of statement. In English and French, (42) and (43) are appropriate examples when S turns out to be a VIP coming out of a conference room, for example, and journalists, who have been waiting outdoors, rush towards him, bombarding him with questions. In Malagasy, S will usually employ (44b), with the future instead of the present tense, unless S deliberately chooses to be overtly aggressive to the point of being rude toward H. Furthermore sentence (44a) requires a special intonation. In all three languages, the Speaker uses a present tense to express his/her Degree of Commitment to a Future course of action. To see that this is indeed so, one can use the literal equivalents of the progressive in French and Malagasy, in which case there is a radical change in meaning: (45) Je ne suis pas en train de repondre aux I not amnot in-the-process of answer to-the (46) Tsy eo/*eto ampamaliana fanontaniana not here in-process-of-answering questions
questions! questions aho (io)! I (this)
(45) and (46) signify something like ‘Here, I am not answering questions’, with the implication that the Speaker and the Hearer are watching a slide or looking at a picture showing the Speaker, who is explaining what he was trying to do when the picture was taken. In other words, this type of Displacement is necessary for (45) and (46), with the literal translation of ‘in the process of V+ ing’, to be used. Also, notice the use of eo ‘Here, Near-the-Hearer’, as opposed to eto ‘Here, Near-the-Speaker’: The sentence with eto is irretrievably ungrammatical and unacceptable, whereas the grammaticality and acceptability of the one .with eo is enhanced by the presence of the subject of the higher clause io ‘this’, yielding the reading ‘This is when I was not in the process of <\~* answering questions’. _ , ,/ L-_i
C. Randriamasimanana
1 Tense/aspect
and displacement
207
4. The overall framework 4.1
The overall framework which emerges from the above analyses is one in which Time flows from left to right, Speaker S in the unmarked case identifies his T,, Time of Utterance, with T, of (T, . . . T,...T,), and opposes T, to T, = Past and T, = Future. Furthermore, there is a demarcation line between T, and T,, on the one hand, and T, and T, on the other. When, in the simplest possible case, there is a straightforward correspondence between T, and the past tense used in a natural language, T, and the present tense, and T, and the future tense, respectively, and assuming that Speaker S identifies his Time of Utterance with T,, we obtain the basic tense/aspect system of a language like Malagasy. The word ‘basic’ here refers to the fact that Displacement is not involved.
If, however, the present tense, simple as in (37) or (38) or in the progressive as in (36), or the past tense as in (8b) or even a combination of past tense and future tense as in (8a), is used to denote the Future, we claim that Displacement is involved. The clearest case was illustrated by uses of the historical present in (39), (40) and (41): Speaker S adopts a Perspective which does not coincide with the one s/he would have, were s/he to view the same Event from the vantage point of T, or his/her actual Time of Utterance. 4.3 Displacement seems to fulfill two main functions: One is to enable Speaker S to be polite -as illustrated by (8a,b), (lla,b) and (14a,b)- so as to avoid a potential Confrontation with Hearer H; the other is to allow S to emphasize his/her Degree of Commitment to the Truth/Action of the propositional content as seen in (4a,b), (5a,b), (6a,b), (34a,b), (35), and (36). If we choose to describe the latter situation as Emphasis, then we obtain a Continuum the. two extremes of which are Politeness and Emphasis. In this short article, I have left out complex structures, but it is obvious from examples such as: (47) Don’t you think it is high time we left? (48) John said that people thought that he did want to go. that the two parameters we have isolated are at work. In (47), the Speaker and his/her companion have not left yet, although S uses the simple past tense in left as though the action had already taken place. In (48), we have a doubly
208
C. Randriamasimanana 1 Tense/aspect and displacement
embedded direct statement which>comprises the emphatic do/did, as in ‘I do want to go’. 4.4 The passage from absence to presence of Displacement is not an abrupt one. There is a transition, which is made explicit by reference to the concept of Speaker Perspective (as developed in sections 2.5, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4). Thus, for example in (17), the co-occurrence of the perfect have seen and the phrase this morning is possible only if Speaker S utters (17) within the time frame specified in the proposition. S cannot use this tense if s/he happens to make his/her statement in the afternoon subsequent to the relevant morning. In other words, the choice hinges crucially on whether S’s Time of Utterance is included or excluded from the time period specified in P. If S’s Time of Utterance falls outside the specified frame, then the relevant factor will be the relative distance between the two frames. Thus, in: (49) My brother has been working hard all afternoon and is now asleep on the sofa. it is quite possible that the Time of Utterance does not belong in the period referred to as ‘all afternoon’, but apparently if T, is not too distant from that time frame, many native speakers still accept (49). This underlines the fact that besides clear-cut zones like Past, Present, and Future, there are fuzzy areas falling between Past and Present, and Present and Future, respectively. Whether a fuzzy area is assigned to the Past or Future rather than the Present depends on Speaker Perspective. 4.5 One advantage of the frame of analysis proposed in this paper is the possibility of integrating tense and aspect. Given{T, . . .(T,) . . .T,}, as shown at the end of section 3.1(a), the basic intuition behind,aspect can be captured in a very simple and straightforward manner by stating that in the case of an aspectual system, Speaker S has to identify his/her own Time of Utterance with T,, and must leave it out of consideration since herewe automatically have a case of absence of Displacement (hence, thesimple Anterior-Posterior dichotomy), whereas in the-case of a tense system, Speaker S can identify Time of Utterance with T,, although this is not mandatory, as shown in section 3.1. Furthermore, our scheme makes the claim that in the world’s languages, aspect is more basic than tense since in an aspectual. system there is no Displacement, whereas in a tense system Displacement is optional. In other words, the framework developed here predicts that children acquiring their
C. Randriamasimanana / Tense/aspect and displacement
209
native tongues are likely to learn aspectual forms of their languages earlier than the tense system, precisely because,they do not need to be formal thinkers, capable of adopting an Outside Observer’s Perspective at that early stage of their cognitive development. 4.6 Last but not least, a terminological explanation is in order to stress the fact that Emphasis as used in this article describes a Situation where Speaker S refers to some Entity/Event which is not locatable within his/her own Here and Now, and does so as if it were present there. This is the reverse of Politeness in that Speaker S refers to some Entity/Event locatable in his/her own Here and Now, and does so as if it were not present there. In other words, Emphasis is just a cover term for a whole range of phenomena which includes Vividness (see the historical present in section 3.4) and Speaker’s Degree of Commitment (see @a,b), (9), (1 la,b), (12) (14a,b), and (15), as explained in section 2.4). Furthermore, Here and Now describes not merely physical location, but also and essentially the psychosocial frame in which Speakers consider themselves to be. (This point is developed in Randriamasimanana (1984).) In this connection, as we saw in (7a) = (16b), (10) and (13) as well as (42) to (46) English allows its speakers to use a strict Here and Now frame - as evidenced by the use of the present tense in the progressive form - more readily than French and Malagasy to refer to their Time of Utterance; by contrast, those other two languages require Displacement for the use of the literal equivalents of ‘to be in the process of V+ing’ to be felicitous.
References Comrie, B., 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keenan, E., 1972. ‘Remarkable subjects in Malagasy’. In: C. Li, ed., Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press. pp. 247-301. Kuno, S., 1977. Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 627-672. Langacker, R., 1975. ‘Functional stratigraphy’. In: Papers from the Functionalism Parasession, Chicago Linguistic Society. pp. 351-397. Randriamasimanana, C., 1984. Articles, demonstratives and locatability in Malagasy. Working Papers in Linguistics 10: 131-151. Univerisity of Melbourne. Randriamasimanana, C., 1986. The causatives of Malagasy. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication 21, University of Hawaii Press, Hawaii.