Premium
Deictic projection: An inquiry into the future‐oriented past tense in Persian *
Author(s) -
Tavangar Manoochehr,
Amouzadeh Mohammad
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
studia linguistica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.187
H-Index - 28
eISSN - 1467-9582
pISSN - 0039-3193
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-9582.2006.00134.x
Subject(s) - deixis , linguistics , negation , modal , persian , past tense , history , contrast (vision) , character (mathematics) , psychology , computer science , philosophy , artificial intelligence , mathematics , chemistry , geometry , polymer chemistry , verb
. The aim of this paper is to investigate the ways in which the Persian past tense form is projected into the future to designate events, states, and processes. While it must be admitted that the phenomenon under consideration is by no means confined to Persian, its examination in this language will reveal certain characteristics which are likely to contribute to a better understanding of how temporal deixis, together with aspectual and modal meanings, interact with contextual factors to yield socio‐culturally relevant utterances. Of special theoretical interest in this respect are the semantic‐pragmatic constraints levied, in varying degrees, on the projected tense in terms of negation, pronominal choice, speech act assignment, aspectual character, modal status, and pitch contour. Fundamental to the present study are three assumptions. First, the deictic projection at issue has pragmatic motivations, and, in addition, stems largely from the ontological asymmetry between pastness and futurity. Second, it has an indisputable edge over the other future‐indicating devices available to Persian speakers in that it denotes factivity with respect to the occurrence of a situation. And third, it is stylistically marked as it digresses from the normal function of the past tense. “And of all the various aspects of time, it is its tensed aspect, the fact that we experience time in terms of a transient now, which is the most promiscuous.” (Robin Le Poidevin, 1998:10)