Conditional morphology in si-clauses: A Canadian-French reanalysis

Abstract

This article reports on a synchronic analysis in the surface variation between the conditional and the imperfect or pluperfect indicative in hypothetical clauses headed by the subordinatorsi. The empirical basis of the study is a corpus of French spoken in the national capital region of Canada, which comprises 120 informants. The study also has a diachronic component concerning the evolution of the variable based on a collection of published works since Early Modern French. The most interesting aspect of the results is the system wherein the morphological exponent of the verb is determined by the modal reading of the utterance. It is revealed that this grammatical trait was attested at earlier steps in the development of the language and that it helps to resolve a form-function asymmetry resulting from use of the indicative imperfect in a conditional context.

The Conceptualization of Counterfactuality in L1 and L2

“…Ottawa-Hull variety of French (Canada), this symmetrical conditional is used to denote the potentiality of the propositional contents while the indicative in the subordinate clause marks off the propositional contents as counterfactual (Le Blanc 2009). When a symmetrical conditional appears, without there being a si (if) in a juxtaposition (10), it is considered to encode either a potential or a counterfactual value.…”

Talking about counterfactual worlds: A comparative study of French and Spanish

“…More problematic is the disambiguation of the pluperfect indicative in the protasis, which can encode either potential or irrealis semantic values. In this case, it is generally assumed that the disambiguation depends on the context (Riegel et al 1994;Vetters 1994;Patard 2007;LeBlanc 2009). 3 Double conditional marking in both the protasis and the apodosis ( 4) is considered a violation of the French standard.…”

Talking about counterfactual worlds

“…More problematic is the disambiguation of the pluperfect indicative in the protasis, which can encode either potential or irrealis semantic values. In this case, it is generally assumed that the disambiguation depends on the context (Riegel et al 1994;Vetters 1994;Patard 2007;LeBlanc 2009). 3 Double conditional marking in both the protasis and the apodosis ( 4) is considered a violation of the French standard.…”