| Popis: |
In this paper, I intend to shed light on the stative vs. dynamic distinction in Saamaka. As in many other creoles, utterances containing an unmarked stative verb have a present interpretation, while those containing an unmarked dynamic verb have a past interpretation. Based on detailed fieldwork, I will demonstrate that the discourse contexts in which the bare verb form occurs matches with those in which present perfect is known to occur cross-linguistically. I postulate that the language has a morphological null perfect morpheme in its TAM paradigm. The Perfect Analysis proposed in this paper exploits the independently acknowledged difference between states and events concerning the inability of the latter to co-occur with a point-like present tense. The ‘perfect’ must be inserted in these contexts to create a derived resultant state, creating the illusion of a ‘past tense’ in many interpretational contexts. An advantage of the Perfect Analysis is that it provides a natural account of why the temporal distinction splits along the stative vs. eventive divide without additional stipulations for non-default readings of the bare verb form. |
Full Text from ScienceDirect