The Linguistic Marking of (Ir)Realis and Subjunctive

Mauri, Caterina; Sansò, Andrea

doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199591435.013.9

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The connection between these two ideas has been made early and often (e.g. Givón 1994, Mauri & Sansò 2016. These discussions are also picked up by de Haan (2012), who shows that, while there are certain correlations between subjunctives and the typical functions of irrealis, there is no oneto-one mapping.…”

Section: Crosslinguistic Mismatches and Correspondencesmentioning

confidence: 95%

Irrealis is real

Prince¹,

Krajinović²,

Krifka³

2022

Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The question of whether irrealis is a meaningful concept in crosslinguistic comparison has been the subject of long-standing controversy. In this article, we argue that the semantic domain of irreality is split into two domains-the possible and the counterfactual-and that an 'irrealis' marker in a given language may refer either to only one of these domains or to both. A significant part of the crosslinguistic variation in what is referred to by the term irrealis can be traced back to this distinction. Other factors that obscure the realis/irrealis divide include functional subdivisions of the irrealis domain and paradigmatic competition within the TAM system of a language. We conclude that 'irrealis' is a crosslinguistically meaningful notion.

show abstract

Section: Crosslinguistic Mismatches and Correspondencesmentioning

confidence: 95%

Irrealis is real

Prince¹,

Krajinović²,

Krifka³

2022

Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Irrealis markers come in various shapes across languages (see Mauri & Sansò 2016: 178ff. for a survey).…”

Section: Terminological and Methodological Preliminariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such a label, which is particularly widespread in the description of Indo‐European languages and enjoys some popularity also in the description of languages of other language families (such as Bantu, Uralic or Algonquian) whose grammatical terminology has been modelled on classical languages such as Latin or Greek (cf. Mauri & Sansò 2016; van der Auwera & Zamorano Aguilar 2016), is mainly used to refer to forms that obligatorily occur in certain types of subordinate clauses (Bybee et al. 1994: 212–13).…”

Section: Terminological and Methodological Preliminariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been suggested (cf. Cristofaro 2012: 143–4; Mauri & Sansò 2016: 189–92, among others) that these and other peculiarities of irrealis markers might be the result of the different diachronic pathways through which they have emerged and established. The diachrony of irrealis markers might thus be crucial to the understanding of their distribution and phenomenology.…”

Section: Introduction: Aims and Samplementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Routes Towards The Irrealis

Sansò

2020

Trans of the Philol Soc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Irrealis markers are characterized by the rampant heterogeneity of their distributional patterns and by the tendency to appear as portmanteau morphemes encoding other grammatical categories (e.g. person). These and other characteristics may find an explanation in diachronic terms, by taking into account the sources from which irrealis markers derive. In this paper, the most frequent sources of irrealis markers are identified by means of a diachronic-typological survey based on a 100-language sample: these include lexical verbs such as 'go', 'want' or 'be', former subordinate clauses that come to be used as main clauses through insubordination and deictic expressions that refer to distant elements. Considering the diachrony of irrealis markers allows us to explain some of their properties such as, among others (i) their distribution across the domain of non-actualized situation types, (ii) the primacy of certain non-actualized situation types that happen to work as bridgeheads in the diachronic development from the source to the target irrealis marker, (iii) the frequent co-encoding of person and reality status by means of the same markers, and (iv) the existence of ergativity splits involving irrealis clauses. The diachronic-typological survey conducted in this paper has some implications on the debate on the validity of reality status as a grammatical category with two opposite values of realis and irrealis: it will be argued that the diachronic scenarios leading to the emergence of irrealis markers are not substantially different from those known from the literature on the emergence of modal markers, which makes reality status superfluous as an independent grammatical category.

show abstract

“…Vgl. dazu auchHolvoet & Pajėdienė (2004, 122−124).15 Für kritische Überblicke vgl.Holvoet (2007, §3),Plungjan (2011, §2.3),Mauri & Sansò (2016).…”

unclassified

On the relation between present and future tense in Lithuanian: Preliminary considerations in the domain of non-deictic tense use

Wiemer

2021

open-series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article examines non-deictic uses of present and future tense in Lithuanian. Narrative use, in which reference intervals match with singular events, is distinguished from suspended propositions characterized by lack of such reference intervals (habitual, dispositional and circumstantial modal, and conditional meanings). Present tense is frequently involved in both usage domains, while the future is rare in narrative use, but overlaps with present tense in certain types of suspended propositions. Moreover, its temporal-deictic use is inherently associated with suspended propositions and “linked” to them via epistemic implicatures. This, in contrast to the present, makes the future more likely to be employed in predictions which entail an observer.The analysis is supplemented by a brief comparison with non-deictic tense use in the nonpast-domain of Slavic languages, yielding a grid of criteria that should be used in crosslinguistic studies on tense-aspect systems based on stem derivation and the feature [±bounded].

show abstract

The Linguistic Marking of (Ir)Realis and Subjunctive

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

Irrealis is real

Irrealis is real

Routes Towards The Irrealis

On the relation between present and future tense in Lithuanian: Preliminary considerations in the domain of non-deictic tense use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About