A typological study on the syntactic variations of counterfactual clauses

ABSTRACT

This paper differs from previous studies that focused on counterfactual markings by establishing a typological classification of counterfactuals (CFs) based on syntactic variations. By taking this approach, the paper is able to answer questions surrounding the downgrading of counterfactuals and its effects on clause linkage, clause order and TAM expression. The author proposes a new working definition that emphasizes meaning while also considering form. Through a survey of 155 languages, the paper provides evidence that the syntax of counterfactuals is more diverse than previously thought, challenging mainstream views on their connection to conditional frameworks. Non-conditional CFs like coordination or insubordination which tend to get marginalized in linguistic analysis and description are also explored in the paper. The preliminary systematization of data presented here will encourage an overall rethinking of the syntactic variations of counterfactuals.

KEYWORDS:

• Counterfactual marking
• counterfactual clause
• conditional
• insubordination

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Professor Matthias Gerner at Shanghai Jiaotong University whose linguistic database makes a great contribution to this paper. Also, the authors would like to express gratitude to two anonymous reviewers and the editor Jean Mulder for their invaluable reviews and suggestions on this paper. Any remaining errors are the authors’ own responsibility.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its appendices.

Notes

1 It is quite common for CFs to use tense categories in a shifted-back manner, such as using the past tense to indicate the non-past, the pluperfect to indicate the past, thus creating the illusory morphologies at the surface level.

2 Professor Östen Dahl suggests (p.c. data) that it is more accurate to define CFs as “that the speaker wants to convey as contrary to fact”. A speaker may believe that a sentence is false while still treating its truth-value as undetermined in a discourse. This has some consequences. We keep using the definition ‘that the speaker believes to be contrary to fact’ here for the consideration that the ‘fact’ is not necessarily true in the objective world.

3 The abbreviations used in glossing follow those of the Leipzig Glossing Rules with the addition of those listed in Appendix IV.

4 Here (x/y/z): x = total number of members in language family; y =  number of languages with obtained documentation; z =  number of languages recorded in the present sample. The numbers are quoted from the database of Professor Matthias Gerner.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the National Funding for Educational Sciences Education Science Planning Project of the Ministry of Education, under Grant ‘Advanced Logic and Innovative Models in National Education for Students from Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan’ (Project No: DIZ230523).

Notes on contributors

Qian Yong

Qian Yong is an associate professor at the college of Foreign Studies, Jinan University. Her primary research area is linguistic typology based on large-scale language samples. Her research captures linguistic diversities, especially on endangered languages, and is committed to the establishment and improvement of databases of the world's languages.

Haoran Ma

Haoran Ma studies at the University of Hong Kong, Master of Arts in Linguistics. His current interests include the linguistic typology of aspect, typology of languages in China and comparative study on Tibeto-Burman languages.