ISSN: 2306-5737E-ISSN: 2658-4069
Acta Linguistica Petropolitana
Transactions of the Institute for Linguistic Studies
ISSN: 2306-5737E-ISSN: 2658-4069
Acta Linguistica Petropolitana
Transactions of the Institute for Linguistic Studies 

Towards a description of Pluperfect and Future Anterior contexts in the New Testament

DOI:10.30842/alp23065737193392431
PDF, 7.7 Mb
Sichinava D. V. K opisaniyu kontekstov plyuskvamperfekta i predbudushchego v Novom Zavete. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. 392–431.

In the paper, an analysis of parallel pluperfect and (less numerous) future anterior contexts in Greek koine, Latin Vulgata, Early Modern English (KJV), Spanish and Church Slavonic versions of the New Testament is presented. The forms in question can express both relative and absolute tense. The pluperfect marks precedence to a point of reference located in the past, whereas the future anterior signals precedence to a future reference point. The forms in question are traditionally referred to as absolute-relative tenses. However, both are known to yield additional non-compositional meanings related to the domain of past temporal frames, (cancelled) resultativity, modality (cf. English had I come earlier…), and evidentiality. A “form-to-semantics” approach is chosen to investigate the mechanisms behind the pluperfect and/or future anterior choice in the languages that have the forms. A classification of the semantic contexts of their use in the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation is proposed, the properties of individual translations / doculects are revealed, and recommendations for further research are given. The findings include, among other things: an overlap between the uses of both forms in irreal contexts (in Early Modern English); ambiguity between the Future Anterior and Perfect Subjunctive in indefinite temporal reference contexts (in Latin); the dependence of the choice of pluperfect forms, as opposed to those of the simple preterite, on the syntactic context (independent sentences, greater frequency in when-clauses); and various details of the use of the pluperfect in individual languages (such as experiential or “not-yet” uses in Church Slavonic or strict absolute-relative uses in Spanish). Given that the non-finite strategy extensively used in biblical versions makes it difficult to pinpoint the mechanism behind the pluperfect vs. preterite choice, a comparison between multiple biblical translations into the same language should be undertaken to complete the research.

Keywords
parallel corpus, pluperfect, future anterior, biblical text
References
Anderson 1982
L. Anderson. The ‘perfect’ as a universal and as a language-specific category. P. Hopper (ed.). Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1982. P. 227–264. DOI: 10.1075/tsl.1.16and.
Barentsen 1986
A. A. Barentsen. The use of the particle БЫЛО in modern Russian. Dutch Studies in Russian Linguistics. 1986. Vol. 8. P. 1–68.
Barentsen 2015a
A. Barentsen. Nablyudeniya o vstrechayemosti plyuskvamperfekta v perevodakh yevangeliy na slavyanskiye yazyki [Observations of the frequency of pluperfect in the Slavic translations of Gospels]. L. Popovich, D. Voyvodich, M. Nomati (eds.). V prostranstve lingvisticheskoy slavistiki. Sbornik nauchnykh statey. V chest 65-letiya akademika Predraga Pipera [The cosmos of linguistic Slavistic studies. Festschrift for Academician Predrag Piper]. Belgrade: University of Belgrade Press, 2015. P. 135–160.
Barentsen 2015b
A. Barentsen. Vid i plyuskvamperfekt v slavyanskikh yazykakh [Aspect and pluperfect in Slavic]. M. Kitajo (ed.). Aspektualnaya semanticheskaya zona: Tipologiya sistem i stsenarii diakhronicheskogo razvitiya. Sbornik statey V Mezhdunarodnoy konferentsii Komissii po aspektologii Mezhdunarodnogo komiteta slavistov [Aspectual semantic zone: a typology of systems and paths of diachronic change. Proceedings of the 5th International conference of the Aspectological commission of the International committee of Slavists]. Kyoto: Kyoto Sangyo University, 2015. P. 14–20.
Bertinetto 1987
P. M. Bertinetto. Why the passé antérieur should be called passé immédiatement antérieur. Linguistics. 1987. No. 25. P. 341–360. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1987.25.2.341.
Bybee et al. 1994
J. Bybee, R. Perkins, W. Pagliuca. The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
Dahl 1985
Ö. Dahl. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell, 1985.
Dahl 2014
Ö. Dahl. The perfect map: Investigating the cross-linguistic distribution of TAME categories in a parallel corpus. B. Szmrecsanyi, B. Wälchli (eds.) Aggregating dialectology, typology, and register analysis. Linguistic variation in text and speech. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2014. P. 268–289. DOI: 10.1515/9783110317558.268.
Dahl, Wälchli 2016
Ö. Dahl, B. Wälchli. Perfects and iamitives: two gram types in one grammatical space. Letras de Hoje. 2016. Vol. 51. No. 3. P. 325–348.
Goeringer 1995
K. Goeringer. The Motivation of Pluperfect Auxiliary Tense in the Primary Chronicle. Russian Linguistics. 1995. Vol. 19. No. 3. P. 319–332. DOI: 10.1007/BF01080602.
Hope 2003
J. Hope. Shakespeare’s Grammar. London: Bloomsbury, 2003.
Ibragimov 2009
I. I. Ibragimov. Taksis v drevnegrecheskom yazyke [Taxis in Ancient Greek]. V. S. Khrakovskiy (ed.). Tipologiya taksisnykh konstruktsiy [Typology of taxis constructions]. Moscow: Znak, 2009. P. 470–503.
Kagan 2011
O. Kagan. The actual world is abnormal: on the semantics of the bylo construction in Russian. Linguistics and Philosophy. 2011. Vol. 34. P. 57–84. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-011-9093-6.
Kashkin 1991
V. B. Kashkin. Funktsionalnaya tipologiya perfekta [A functional typology of the perfect]. Voronezh: Voronezh State University Press, 1991.
Khaburgayev 1986
G. A. Khaburgayev. Staroslavyanskiy yazyk [Old Chuch Slavonic]. 2nd ed. Moscow: Prosveshcheniye, 1986.
Knyazev 2004
Yu. P. Knyazev. Forma i znacheniye konstruktsiy s chastitsey bylo v russkom yazyke [Form and meaning of the Russian constructions with bylo particles in Russia]. Yu. D. Apresyan (ed.). Sokrovennyye smysly. Slovo, tekst, kultura. Sbornik statey v chest N. D. Arutyunovoy [Hidden meanings. Word, text, and culture. Festschrift for Nina Arutyunova]. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoy kultury, 2004. P. 296–304.
Kozlov 2015
A. A. Kozlov. Futurum pro habituali v russkom, mokshanskom i udmurtskom [Futurum pro habituali in Russian, Moksha and Udmurt]. Tezisy k konferentsii «Tipologiya morfosintaksicheskikh parametrov» [Abstracts for the Typology of Morphosyntax parameters conference]. Moscow, October 2015.
Makarova 2020
A. Makarova. Futuralno-khabitualnaya polisemiya v balkanskikh yazykakh [Polysemy between futures and habituals in Balkanic languages]. Die Welt der Slaven. 2020. Vol. 65. No. 1. P. 200–213.
Penkova 2019
Ya. A. Penkova. Modalno-evidentsialnyye strategii predbudushchego: anketirovaniye i korpusnyye dannyye [Modal and evidential strategies of the future anterior: questionnaires and corpus data]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija. 2019. No. 6. P. 7–31. DOI: 10.31857/S0373658X0007544-7.
Petrukhin 2008
P. V. Petrukhin. Diskursivnyye funktsii drevnerusskogo knizhnogo plyuskvamperfekta (na materiale Kiyevskoy i Galitsko-Volynskoy letopisey) [Discourse functions of the Old East Slavic literary form of the pluperfect, exemplified by Kyiv and Halych-Volyn Chronicles]. V. A. Plungian, V. Yu. Gusev, A. Yu. Urmanchiyeva (eds.). Issledovaniya po teorii grammatiki. Vyp. 4: Diskursivnyye kategorii [Issues in grammar theory. Pt. 4: Discourse categories]. Moscow: Indrik, 2008. P. 213–240.
Plungian, van der Auwera 2006
V. Plungian, J. van der Auwera. Towards a typology of discontinuous past marking. STUF — Language typology and universals. Vol. 59. No. 4. 2006. P. 317–349. DOI: 10.1524/stuf.2006.59.4.317.
Sitchinava 2013
D. V. Sitchinava. Tipologiya plyuskvamperfekta. Slavyanskiy plyuskvamperfekt [Atypology ofthe pluperfect. The Slavic pluperfect]. Moscow: AST, 2013.
Sitchinava 2016
D. V. Sitchinava. Yevropeyskiy perfekt skvoz prizmu parallelnogo korpusa [The European perfect through the lens of a parallel corpus]. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. 2016. Vol. XII. Pt. 2. P. 85–114.
Sitchinava 2019
D. V. Sichinava. Slavyanskiy plyuskvamperfekt: prostranstva vozmozhnostey [Slavic pluperfect: loci of variation]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija. 2019. No. 1. P. 30–57. DOI: 10.31857/S0373658X0003593-1.
Sitchinava 2022
D. V. Sitchinava. Mnogoznachnost predbudushchego v romanskikh yazykakh v tipologicheskom kontekste [Future anterior polysemy in Romance within a typological context]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija. 2022. No. 4. P. 48–65. DOI: 10.31857/0373-658X.2022.4.48-65.
Squartini 1999
M. Squartini. On the semantics of pluperfect: evidences from Germanic and Romance. Linguistic Typology. 1999. No. 3. P. 51–89. DOI: 10.1515/lity.1999.3.1.51.
Stoynova 2016
N. M. Stoynova. Nefuturalnyye upotrebleniya form budushchego vremeni [Non-futural uses of the Future]. Materialy dlya proyekta korpusnogo opisaniya russkoy grammatiki [Materials for the project of a corpus-based Russian grammar] (http://rusgram.ru). Ms. Moscow, 2016.
Vostrikova 2010
N. V. Vostrikova. Tipologiya sredstv vyrazheniya eksperiyentivnogo znacheniya [Typology of the means of expression of experiential meaning]. PhD thesis. Moscow: Lomonosov Moscow State University, 2010.
Zalizniak 2004
A. A. Zalizniak. Drevnenovgorodskiy dialekt [The Old Novgorod Dialect]. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoy kultury, 2004.
Keywords
parallel corpus, pluperfect, future anterior, biblical text
ScopusSCImago Journal & Country RankE-Library.ruCrossRefCyberLeninkaVAKERIH Plus