Book Chapter

Valore modale ‘epistemico-doxastico’ dell’imperfetto in italiano e nelle lingue slave

  • Andrea Trovesi

The imperfetto epistemico-doxastico in Italian and the imperfekt na doseštane in Bulgarian refer to the modal usage of the imperfect tense in interrogative sentences when asking for a reminder about information previously known, but forgotten at present. This article has two aims. Firstly, it is illustrated how such modal meaning is displayed in Bulgarian and Italian, two languages where the imperfect tense is fully functioning. Due to the existence of the future past and dedicated narrative verbal forms, in Bulgarian this modal usage of the imperfect shows bigger constraints. Secondly, a comparison with other Slavic languages is made. Whereas in Slavic languages lacking the imperfect tense this meaning cannot be usually conveyed, in Serbian and Croatian some exceptions are observed (the imperfect relic forms beše ‘he/she/it was’ and zvaše ‘he/she/it was called’; the development of a fìxed imperfect marker beše, which is added to verbal forms in the present tense).

  • Keywords:
  • Imperfect,
  • Epistemic-doxastic modality,
  • Italian language,
  • Bulgarian language,
  • Interslavic comparison,
+ Show More

Andrea Trovesi

Sapienza University of Rome, Italy - ORCID: 0000-0001-7107-5657

  1. Barceló, G.J., Bres, J. 2006. Les temps de l’indicatif en français. Paris: Ophrys.
  2. Bazzanella, C. 1994. Le facce del parlare. Un approccio pragmatico all’italiano parlato. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.
  3. Berretta, M. 1992. Sul sistema di tempo, aspetto, e modo nell’italiano contemporaneo. In B. Moretti, D. Petrini, S. Bianconi (a cura di). Linee di tendenza dell'italiano contemporaneo. Atti del XXV congresso internazionale della Società di Linguistica Italiana. Roma: Bulzoni: 135-153.
  4. Bertinetto, P.M. 1986. Tempo, aspetto e azione nel verbo italiano. Il sistema dell’indicativo. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.
  5. Bertinetto, P.M. 1997. Il dominio tempo-aspettuale. Demarcazioni, intersezioni, contrasti. Torino: Rosenberg&Sellier.
  6. Bres, J. 2005. L’imparfait: l’un et/ou le multiple? A propos des imparfaits ‘narratif et ‘d’hypothèse'. In: E. Labeau, P. Larrivée (texts réunis par). Nouveaux développements de l’imparfait. Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi: 1-32.
  7. Bres, J. 2009. "Dialogisme et temps verbaux de l’indicatif". Langue française 163: 21-39.
  8. Bres, J., Mellet, S. "Une approche dialogique des faits grammaticaux". Langue française 163: 3-20.
  9. Conte, M.E. 1984. Deixis am Phantasma. Una forma di riferimento nei testi. In L. Coveri (a cura di). Linguistica testuale. Atti del XV Congresso internazionale di studi. Roma: Bulzoni: 187-205.
  10. De Mulder, W. 2012. "Un sens épistémique pour l’imparfait et le passé simple?". Langue française: 99-113.
  11. Desclés, J.-P. 2003. Imparfait narratif et imparfait de nouvel état en français. In W. Banyś, L. Bednarczuk, K. Polański (eds.). Études linguistiques romano-slaves offertes à Stanislaw Karolak. Kraków: Edukacja: 131-155.
  12. Desclés, J.-P., Guentchéva, Z. 1990. Discourse Analysis of Aorist and Imperfect in Bulgarian and French. In N.B. Thelin (ed.). Verbal Aspect in Discourse. Amsterdam, Phildadelphia: John Benjamins: 237-261.
  13. Desclés, J.-P., Guentchéva, Z. 2004. Imparfaits bulgare et frangais: confrontation sur une valeur sémantique. In R. Vlaxova, J. Tiseva (éds.). Kognitivna gramatika na bălgarskija i frenskija ezik - Opisanie i formacija. Sofia: Akademično izdatelstvo “Marin Drinov”: 10-33.
  14. Giorgi, A., Pianesi, F. 2004. On the Speaker’s and the Subject’s Temporal Representations. The Case of the Italian Imperfect. In J. Guéron, J. Lecarme (eds.). The Syntax of Time. Cambridge (MA)-London: The MIT Press: 259-298.
  15. Guentchéva, Z. 1988. "L’aspect et le fonctionnement de l’imparfait imperfectif en bulgare". Revue des Études slaves LX/2: 393-404.
  16. Guentchéva, Z. 1990. Temps et aspect: L’exemple du bulgare contemporain. Paris: CNR.
  17. Guentchéva, Z. 1994. "Imparfait, aoriste et passé simple: confrontation de leurs emplois dans des texts bulgares et français". Studia kognitywne 1: 163-181.
  18. Kovačević, M. 2008. "O dejktičkoj upotrebi imperfekta". Srpski jezik XIII: 149-161.
  19. Maretić, T. 1963. Gramatika hrvatskoga ili srpskoga književnog jezika. Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska.
  20. Mrazović, P. 2009. Gramatika srpskog jezika za strance. Sremski Karlovci-Novi Sad: Izdavačka knjižarnica Zorana Stojanovica.
  21. Nannoni, C. 2004. L’imperfetto tra linguistica e traduzione (francese-italiano). Trieste: EUT.
  22. Nicolova, R. 2008. Bălgarska gramatika. Morfologija. Sofija: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Oxridski”.
  23. Palmer, F.R. 2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: University Press.
  24. Pašov, P. 1999. Bălgarska gramatika. Plovdiv: Xermes.
  25. Patard, A. 2011. The epistemic uses of the English simple past and the French imparfait. In A. Patard, F. Brisard (eds.). Cognitive Approaches to Tense, Aspect, and Epistemic Modality. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 278-310.
  26. Patard, A. 2014. "When tense and aspect convey modality. Reflections on the modal uses of past tenses in Romance and Germanie languages". Journal of Pragmatics 71: 69-97.
  27. Roglić, V. 2000. Imperfekat u francuskom i srpskom jeziku. Mrljeg Beograd.
  28. Rusinov, R., Georgiev, S. (săst.). 2000. Enciklopedija na săvremenija bălgarski ezik. Veliko Tărnovo: IPK “Sveti Evtimij Patriarx Tărnovski".
  29. Sladojević, Č.P. 1953-1954. "O imperfektu u srpskohrvatskom jeziku". Južnoslovenski filolog XX: 213-228.
  30. Squartini, M. 2001. "The internal structure of evidentiality in Romance". Studies in Language 25: 297-334.
  31. Stankov, V. 1966. Imperfekăt v săvremennija bălgarski knižoven ezik. Sofija: Akademija na naukite.
  32. Stankov, V. 1994-1995. "L’imparfait bulgare d’un point de vue cognitif". Balkansko ezikoznanie 37.1-2: 96-114; 3-4: 191-209.
  33. Stanojčić, Ž. 2010. Gramatika srpskog književnog jezika. Beograd: Kreativni Centar.
  34. Stevanović, M. 1953-1954. "Značenje imperfekta prema upotrebi u jeziku Р.P. Njegoša". Južnoslovenski filolog XX: 39-80.
  35. Stevanović, M. 1959. "Oko značenja imperfekta". Zbornik filološkog fakulteta IV-2. Univerzitet u Beogradu: 119-143.
  36. Stevanović, M. 1964. Savremeni srpskohrvatski jezik (gramatički sistemi i književnojezična norma), I: Uvod, fonetika, morfologija. Beograd: Naučno delo.
  37. Stojanov, S. (red.). 1983. Gramatika na săvremenija bălgarski knižoven ezik, II. Morfologija. Sofija: Bălgarska akademija na naukite.
  38. Stojićević, A. 1951. Značenje aorista i imperfekta и srpskohrvatskom jeziku. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti.
  39. Vuković, J. 1955. Sintaksička vrednost imperfekta u savremenom srspkohrvatskom jeziku. Sarajevo: Naučno društvo NR Bosne i Hercegovine.
PDF
  • Publication Year: 2023
  • Pages: 147-164
  • Content License: CC BY 4.0
  • © 2023 Author(s)

XML
  • Publication Year: 2023
  • Content License: CC BY 4.0
  • © 2023 Author(s)

Chapter Information

Chapter Title

Valore modale ‘epistemico-doxastico’ dell’imperfetto in italiano e nelle lingue slave

Authors

Andrea Trovesi

Language

Italian

DOI

10.36253/979-12-215-0216-9.14

Peer Reviewed

Publication Year

2023

Copyright Information

© 2023 Author(s)

Content License

CC BY 4.0

Metadata License

CC0 1.0

Bibliographic Information

Book Title

Studi contrastivi di linguistica slava: grammatica e pragmatica

Editors

Rosanna Benacchio, Lucyna Gebert

Authors

Andrea Trovesi

Peer Reviewed

Number of Pages

204

Publication Year

2023

Copyright Information

© 2023 Author(s)

Content License

CC BY 4.0

Metadata License

CC0 1.0

Publisher Name

Firenze University Press

DOI

10.36253/979-12-215-0216-9

ISBN Print

979-12-215-0215-2

eISBN (pdf)

979-12-215-0216-9

Series Title

Biblioteca di Studi Slavistici

Series ISSN

2612-7687

Series E-ISSN

2612-7679

27

Fulltext
downloads

40

Views

Export Citation

1,303

Open Access Books

in the Catalogue

1,746

Book Chapters

3,161,365

Fulltext
downloads

3,987

Authors

from 820 Research Institutions

of 63 Nations

63

scientific boards

from 339 Research Institutions

of 43 Nations

1,148

Referees

from 346 Research Institutions

of 37 Nations