Cover not available

In:Evidence for Evidentiality
Edited by Ad Foolen, Helen de Hoop and Gijs Mulder
[Human Cognitive Processing 61] 2018
► pp. 199–226

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 8
The French future

Evidentiality and incremental information

 | Institut Jean Nicod, CNRS/ENS/EHESS
Published online: 19 July 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.61.09mar
We propose a new analysis for the French future, which treats it as a modal-evidential, articulating two perspectival points – a conjectural and a ratificational one. Considering that future also contributes a relative tense, we explain a variety of uses covering previously unexplained cases, including those in which the speaker knows that the prejacent is true. Finally, our account sheds some light on cross-linguistic facts and most notably on the relation between the ratificational French future and the conjectural future in Italian (akin to an epistemic modal), paving the way for a typological distinction between two types of languages: ‘conjectural future type’ languages and ‘ratificational future type’ ones.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Disentangling future from epistemic modality
  • 3.The temporal and the ‘present ratification’ use
    • 3.1 fut and past, scoping relations and relative tense
    • 3.2Temporal and present ratification uses: truth conditions, inferences and direct evidence constraint
      • 3.2.1The truth conditional dimension
      • 3.2.2Deriving the inference of ignorance
    • 3.3The direct evidence constraint of ratificational modals
    • 3.4First set of predictions
  • 4.Epistemic reading
    • 4.1The epistemic interpretation of future with past
    • 4.2Summary
  • 5.Synchronic and cross-linguistic variation: the epistemic interpretation of simple future sentences
    • 5.1Conjectural future and the competition with ‘devoir’
    • 5.2Synchronic variation with eventives: a new hypothesis
    • 5.3A note on cross-linguistic variation
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • References
References (55)
References
Aikhenvald, A. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berretta, M. 1997. Sul futuro concessivo: Riflessioni su un caso (dubbio) di degrammaticalizzazione. Linguistica e Filologia, 5, 7–40.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bertinetto, P. M. 1979. Alcune ipotesi sul nostro futuro (con alcune osservazioni su potere e dovere). Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, 4, 77–138.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boogaart, R. 2007. The past and perfect of epistemic modals. In L. de Saussure, J. Moeschler, & G. Puskas (Eds.), Recent advances in the syntax and semantics of tense, aspect and modality (47–70). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boogaart, R., & Trnavac, R. 2011. Imperfective aspect and epistemic modality. In A. Patard, & F. Brisard (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to tense, aspect and epistemic modality (217–248). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H., & Verkuyl, H. 2013. Binary tense and modality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 32, 973–1009. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caudal, P. 2012. Relations entre temps, aspect, modalité et évidentialité dans le système du français. Langue Française, 173, 115–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Condoravdi, C. 2002. Temporal interpretation for modals. Modals for the present and modals for the past. In D. Beaver, S. Kaufmann, B. Clark, & L. Casillas (Eds.), Stanford Papers on Semantics (59–87). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Copley, B. 2002. The Semantics of the Future. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dalrymple, M., Kanazawa, M., Kim, Y., Mchombo, S., & Peter, S. 1998. Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21, 159–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dendale, P. 2001. Le futur conjectural versus devoir épistémique: différences de valeur et restrictions d’emploi. Le Français Moderne, 69(1), 1–20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enç, M. 1996. Tense and modality. In S. Lappin (Ed.), Handbook of contemporary semantic theory (345–358). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Falaus, A., & Laca, B. 2014. Les formes de l’incertitude. Le futur de conjecture en espagnol et le présomptif roumain. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 78, 313–366.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faller, M. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
von Fintel, K., & Gillies, A. 2010. Must…stay…strong! Natural Language Semantics, 18, 351–383. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A., & Mari, A. 2012. The future of Greek and Italian: An epistemic analysis. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 17, 255–270.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. A two dimensional analysis of the future: modal adverbs and speaker’s bias. Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, 115–122.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2014. The future in Greek and Italian: metaphysical and epistemic dimensions. Ms. University of Chicago and Institut Jean Nicod.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015. A unified analysis of the future as epistemic modality: the view from Greek and Italian. Ms. University of Chicago and Institut Jean Nicod.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017a. Epistemic future and epistemic MUST: non-veridicality, evidence and partial knowledge. In J. Blaszczak, A. Giannakidou, D. Klimek-Jankowska, & K. Mygdalski (Eds.), Mood, aspect, modality revisited. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017b. La dimension évaluative du futur: le rôle des adverbes. In L. Baranzini, & L. de Saussure (Eds.), Le Futur dans les Langues Romanes. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017c. A unifies analysis of the future as epistemic modality. The view from Greek and Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017d. The semantic roots of positive polarity: epistemic modal verbs and adverbs in Greek and Italian. Ms. University of Chicago and Institut Jean Nicod.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Haan, F. 1999. Evidentiality and epistemic modality: setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 18, 83–101.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2001. The relation between modality and evidentiality. In R. Müller, & M. Reis (Eds.), Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen (201–216). Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Hoop, H., Foolen, A., Mulder, G., & van Mulken, V. this volume. I think and I believe: evidential expressions in Dutch.
Homer, V. 2010. Epistemic modals, high ma non troppo. Proceedings of Nels 40.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kissine, M. 2008. From predictions to promises. Pragmatics and Cognition, 16, 169–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laca, B. 2012. On modal tenses and tensed modals. Cahiers Chronos, 25, 163–198.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, J. 2012. Temporal constraints on the meaning of evidentiality. Natural Language Semantics, 21, 1–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mari, A. 2009. Disambiguating the Italian Future. Proceedings of Generative Lexicon, 209–216.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2014. Each Other, asymmetry and reasonable futures. Journal of Semantics, 31(2), 209– 261. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015a. Modalités et temps. Des modèles aux données. Bern: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015b. French future: exploring the future ratification hypothesis. Journal of French Language Studies 26(3), 353–378. d Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. Assertability condition of epistemic (and fictional) attitudes and mood variation. Proceedings of SALT 26, 61–81.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matthewson, L., Rullmann, H., & Davis, H. 2007. Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St’at’imcets’. The Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 7, 201–254. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mithun, M. 1986. Evidential diachrony in Northern Iroquoian. In W. Chafe, & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (89–112). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mortelmans, T. 2000. On the ‘evidential’ nature of the ‘epistemic’ use of the German modals müssen and sollen. In J. van der Auwera, & P. Dendale (Eds.), Modal verbs in Germanic and Romance languages [Belgian Journal of Linguistics 14], 131–148. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mulder, G. this volume. (Yo) creo que: as a marker of evidentiality and epistemic modality.
Narrog, H. 2012. Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prior, A. 1957. Time and modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rocci, A. 2000. L’interprétation épistémique du futur en Italien et en Français: Une analyse procédurale. Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 22, 241–274.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Saussure, L., & Morency, P. 2011. A cognitive-pragmatic view of the French epistemic future. Journal of French Language Studies, 22, 207–223. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sthioul, B. 2007. Informations conceptuelle et procédurale: La piste beauzéenne. In L. de Saussure, J. Moeschler, & G. Puskas (Eds.), Information temporelle, procédures et ordre discursif (105–121). Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Squartini, M. 2004. Disentangling evidentiality and epistemic modality in Romance. Lingua, 114, 873–895. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sueur, J. P. 1979. Analyse sémantique des verbes ‘devoir’ et ‘pouvoir’. Le Français Moderne, 2, 97–119.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tasmowski, L. 1980. Un ‘devoir’ opérateur. Travaux de Linguistique, 1, 43–58.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tasmowski, L., & Dendale, P. 1998. Must/will and doit/futur simple as epistemic modal markers. Semantic value and restrictions of use. In J. E. van der Auwera (Ed.), English as a human language. To honour Louis Goossens (325–336). Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomason, R. 1984. Combination of tense and modality. In D. Gabbay, & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic: Extensions of classical logic (135–165). Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Huijsmans, Marianne
2025. Timing of evidence and epistemic modal claims. Natural Language Semantics 33:2 ► pp. 207 ff. DOI logo
Ippolito, Michela & Donka F. Farkas
2022. Assessing alternatives: the case of the presumptive future in Italian. Linguistics and Philosophy 45:4 ► pp. 943 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue