Communication and Linguistics Studies
Volume 5, Issue 2, June 2019, Pages: 30-44
Received: Apr. 21, 2019;
Accepted: Jun. 3, 2019;
Published: Jun. 18, 2019
Views 284 Downloads 66
Mostafa Rahimirad, Department of Foreign Languages, Allameh Tabatabai`e University, Tehran, Iran
Temporal references have been the subject of many studies around the world. Futurity is specially an elusive concept really difficult to perceive and describe. The present study tries to launch an investigation regarding the variability of future tense in Farsi. 130 sentences extracted from 8 interviews have been explored along with age, gender, presence or absence of temporal adverbial and animacy of the subject. 5 possible variabilities for expressing futurity are considered in the present study. Future time is especially difficult to perceive and in fact it might not occur. This forces us when it comes to the modality in which statements about the future may be interpreted. Not only do we just talk about those future events which are planned, but also that is the only (natural) modality that we can ascribe to those events. We suggest that the notion of future tense or futurity marking is a second class function, and the means available to futurity marking are typically borrowed from other constructions in the language. However, before a further discussion of the circumstances giving rise to the idea, as well as some facts that seem to follow from this constraint on modality, we would like to give a brief sketch of some ways that futurity is expressed in different languages. This paper studies that the Persian is not only conditioned by linguistic factors, it also most likely follows of development similar to English.
A Functional Analysis of Future Tense Variations in Persian Language, Communication and Linguistics Studies.
Vol. 5, No. 2,
2019, pp. 30-44.
Copyright © 2019 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Van der Geer, J., Hanraads, J. A. J., & Lupton R. A. (2000). The art of writing a scientific article. Journal of Scientific Communications, 163, 51-59.
Eichman, p, (2003). “observation on futurity”.
Freduenthal, D, (2001). “Simulating the temporal reference of Dutch and English”.
Lin, J, 2001. “Selectional restrictions of tenses and temporal reference of Chinese bare sentences”. Lingua, 113, 271-302.
Lotfi, A. H, (1997). “Tense, IP and parametric Variation”. Proceeding of conference on Language, Cognition, and Interpretation.
Lyons, C. G, (2002). “A look into the Spanish future”. University college London, linguistic section and School of communication studies, N. Ireland Polytechnic, UK.
Sarkar, A, (2000). “The conflict between future tense and modality: the case of will in English”. Dep. Of computer and information science, university of Pennsylvania.
Schwarze, C, (2001). “Do sentences have tenses?” The International LFG conference, Hong Kong, June 25-27.
Scriven, M, 2001. “Evaluation: Future tense”.
Taghva, M., Beckly, R., & Sadeh, M,(2003). “A stemming algorithm for the Farsi Language”. Information Science Institute, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Tomic, O. M, (2003). “The syntax of Balkan Slavic future tenses”. Lingua, 114, 517-542.
Walker, J. A; poplak, Sh., Cacoullos, P. T, (2004). “Looking into the future in English and French”. Sociolinguistic Symposium 15, University of Newcastle- Upon- Tyne.
Vincent, Diane and David Sankoff. 1992. Punctors: a pragmatic variable. Language Variation and Change, 4. 206–16.
Weiner, E. and William Labov. 1983Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19. 29–58.
Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education,, 149–162.