It is available online at https://doi.org/10.36253/979-12-215-0216-9.16

The modal meaning za pripomnjane of the Bulgarian imperfect tense and its counterparts in other Slavic languages1

Abstract: Amongst Slavic languages, only Bulgarian (and Macedonian) has retained the imperfect, a synthetic past tense inherited from Protoslavic. Apart from its temporal meanings, the Bulgarian imperfect occurs in a variety of modal meanings, which, generally speaking, imply a modification in the epistemic validity of the utterance. The modal meaning za propomnjane ‘for reminding’ of the Bulgarian imperfective imperfect is used to ask for previously given but at present forgotten information. Based on previous research work on the subject, the paper aims to investigate whether and to what extent such a meaning can be expressed by verbal morphology in the Slavic languages that have lost the imperfect tense. The languages considered in the paper are: Bulgarian, Serbian (Croatian), Czech, Polish and Russian.

Keywords: Bulgarian, Imperfect tense, Modal meanings, Slavic languages, Contrastive analysis.

1. Introduction

The imperfect is a synthetic past tense form that Bulgarian and Macedonian have retained, while it has been lost in the other Slavic languages. Besides its temporal meanings, the imperfect displays a wide array of modal usages, one of which is the so-called imperfect za pripomnjane ‘for reminding’. This modal usage of the imperfect is triggered when the speaker asks for the reactivation of information that was previously obtained but that in the moment of utterance cannot be retrieved, as in sentences (1) and (2):

(1) Как се казваше?

‘What was your/his/her name?’

(2) Кога заминаваше влакът ти?

‘When was your train leaving?’

The aim of this paper is to show how the imperfect za pripomnjane works in Bulgarian and to check whether past tense forms in other Slavic languages are suitable for expressing it. The other Slavic languages that will be taken into consideration are Serbian, Czech, Polish and Russian, where at present only one single analytic past tense form is used. The analysis has been carried out through a questionnaire, in which native speakers have been asked about the acceptability of the modal interpretation za pripomnjane in sentences containing an imperfect or an imperfective past tense form. The analytical framework applied in this paper is taken from research studies in the Romance languages and reference to them will be consistently made. In Italian and French, for example, the imperfect is a past tense commonly used in its temporal meanings and, despite the differences in frequency, in a wide range of modal usages as well (see for overviews Squartini 2001, Patard 2014 or Trovesi 2018).

Having this in mind, before tackling the main topic, an overview of the functioning of the imperfect will be given, with regard to both its basic temporal meanings, and its secondary modal ones.

2. The Imperfect

The vast literature on the imperfect can be divided into two main branches of research, which are highly complementary. The first aims at defining the semantic invariant or the notional configuration of this past tense, in order to explain both the prototypical and the modal usages (“résidence identitaire”, Bres 2005, 2). The second approach is about setting up the most detailed classification list possible of the uses of the imperfect, mainly of the modal ones.

2.1 Temporal Meanings

With regard to its core or temporal usage, the imperfect tense is used in Bulgarian in the following meanings: progressive (3), stative (4) and iterative (5).

(3) Тя вървеше по улицата и мислеше за бъдещето.

‘She was walking on the street and thinking about the future.’

(4) В ъгъла стоеше шкаф с книги, върху масата лежаха вестници.

‘A bookcase stood in the corner, newspapers lay one the table.’

(5) Всяка сутрин ставах рано и отивах на лекции.

‘Every morning I got up/used to get up early and went/go to lectures.’

2.2 Modal Meanings

In addition to its temporal meanings, the imperfect tense displays a rich variety of modal meanings or, in other words, non-temporal meanings, where the time of the event is not necessarily in the past:

Под “модална употреба” разбираме използуването на имперфектната форма с цел да се изразят вторични модални отсенки, излизащи извън рамките на нормалната изявителна (или преизказна) модалност на формата, в случаите когато имперфектната форма като че ли изгубва специфичното си темпорално значение и изразява действия, които притежават фактически друга “неимперфектна” темпорална ориентация. (Stankov 1966, 131)

‘By “modal use” we understand the use of the imperfect form to express secondary modal nuances that go beyond the normal indicative (or renarrated) modality of the form, in cases where the imperfect form seems to lose its specific temporal meaning and comes to express actions whose temporal orientation is in fact “non-imperfect”.’

There are many and detailed classifications of these secondary meanings. See, for example, Nannoni (2004, 15–37) for Italian:

a. onirico: Ho sognato che io avevo fame e tu ti mangiavi tutta la torta.

b. fantastico: Peccato che non ci siamo portati via quella bella insegna. Già e poi magari passava un vigile e ci conciava per le feste.

c. ludico: (Facciamo che) io ero il re e tu la principessa.

d. conato o imminenziale: L’aereo decollava già dalla pista, quando il pilota si accorse che un motore perdeva colpi.

e. ipotetico: Se lo sapevo prima, arrivavo in tempo a salutarti.

f. epistemico e potenziale: Vincenzo doveva essere qui, non capisco che cosa gli sia successo.

g. attenuativo o di cortesia: Cosa desiderava, signora?

h. ipocoristico: Aveva fame la mia bambina?

i. epistemico-doxastico: Quand’è che partiva il tuo aereo domani?

j. pianificazione: Domani andavo in biblioteca.

De Mulder (2012, 102–3) for French:

a. imparfait de politesse ou d’atténuation: Je voulais vous demander d’intercéder en ma faveur.

b. imparfait forain: Qu’est-ce qu’elle voulait la petite dame?

c. imparfait hypocoristique: un homme, qui garde les enfants de son amie en son absence, tente de consoler le petit garçon d’un gros chagrin en le prenant dans ses bras et dit: – Ch’est un pauvre bébé cha … il avait le coeur brijé …

d. imparfait préludique: Moi, j’étais le gendarme et tu avais volé une voiture.

e. imparfait hypothétique: Si je gagnais le gros lot, je le partagerais avec vous.

f. imparfait exprimant un souhait ou un désir: Ah, si j’avais une fortune!

g. imparfait contrefactuel: Elle mit la main sur le loquet … un pas de plus, elle était dans la rue.

And for Bulgarian Stankov (1966, 131–44; 1994–1995: 196–200):

a. politesse: Исках да ви помоля за една услуга. ‘I wanted to ask you a favour.’

b. rappel: Вие как се казвахте? ‘What was your name?’

c. optativ: Да можех да му помогна! ‘If only I could help him!’

d. irréel: Ако бях по-млад и имах повече пари, бих заминал на работа в чужбина. ‘If I were younger and had more money, I would go abroad to work.’

e. éventuel: И ако някой влезеше, щеше да види, че в стаята няма никой. ‘And if someone came in, they would see that there was no one in the room.’

There are various hypotheses about the rise of the modal meanings of the imperfect (see Nannoni 2004 and Patard 2014 for an overview).

It was once thought that at the origin of such modal meanings lay a metaphoric transposition (transpozicija / prenosna upotreba) of temporal and aspectual traits of the imperfect: “La lontananza temporale diventa metaforicamente una lontananza modale” (Bazzanella 1994, 103).

Moving away from this explanation and towards a more consistent categorial definition of the imperfect, which enables us to explain both its prototypical and its modal meanings, Patard (2014) maintains that any verbal tense has a “schematic meaning” and all other different uses are to be understood as “extensions” of this schematic meaning: “Non past interpretations of past tenses are pragmatic extensions of the schematic meaning” (Patard 2014, 73). According to her theory, the semantics of past tenses is able to trigger modal non-past interpretations operating through a kind of “projection” outside the utterance. This happens when the past tense does not refer to the past time of the propositional contents of the utterance, but merely shows when the epistemic validity of the utterance begins. In other words, the reference point of Reichenbach’s theoretical framework functions as an evaluation point: R = Ep “from which the epistemic validity (V) of the uttered proposition is considered” (Patard 2014, 74). This is particularly evident with the Romance imperfect, which can extend the epistemic validity of the utterance up to the present and even further to the future, as in (6):

(6) [Mary a dit que] John restait demain jusqu’à quatre heures.

3. The Modal Meaning za pripomnjane

The imperfect za pripomnjane (Nicolova 2008, 285) or na doseštane (Stankov 1966; 136; valeur de rappel Stankov 1994–1995, 200; see also Stojanov 1983, 332–33; Pašov 1999, 145) is one of the most common modal meanings of the imperfect, especially in spoken varieties of language. It occurs in questions when the speaker asks to retrieve information given in the past but forgotten at the present time.

Patard lists this function in the group of evidential uses (Patard 2014, 79) and terms it an “echo question”, as it represents a reply to a statement (albeit ideal) given at an earlier time. Similar views can be found in De Mulder (2012, 99) “interprétations épistémiques ou évidentielles”, Squartini (2001, 309) “the modal semantics of the imperfect in such cases as […] basically involving evidentiality” and Berretta (1992), who has systematically described this usage in Italian, naming it “imperfetto epistemico-doxastico”.

The origin of such evidential usage of the imperfect is generally traced at a syntactic level to indirect speech. According to the rules of the consecutio temporum, the imperfect is the tense used in place of the present or the future in subordinate clauses introduced by verba dicendi (Bazzanella 1990, 450–52; Bres 2009, 13 “Dans ces imparfaits des dires, on a affaire à une subordination énonciative (relayée, en discours indirect, par la subordination syntaxique)” and Patard 2014, 75–7; 82–3 “marked interpretations in past reported speech”). This point of view presupposes the elision of the main clause from the underlying structure of the sentence:

(7) Che cosa c’era al cinema stasera?

Che cosa [hai detto che] c’era stasera al cinema?

In the literature on the imperfect za pripomnjane in Bulgarian there is no direct reference to the evidential nature of the imperfect. This is not surprising, as Bulgarian has a dedicated mood for expressing evidentiality. Nevertheless, Bulgarian grammars consistently report that the imperfect tense can be used instead of the present in subordinate clauses introduced by verbs such as чувам ‘hear’, мисля ‘think’, казвам ‘say’ generally in the aorist (see Stojanov 1983, 329–30; Nicolova 2008, 284).

(8) Toй не каза ли как се казваше? > Toй [не каза ли] как се казваше?

‘Didn’t he say what his name was? > [Didn’t he say?] what his name was?’

(9) Toй не каза ли как се казва?

‘Didn’t he say his name?’

3.1 Bulgarian

Bulgarian grammars already offer good insight into the functioning of this modal meaning of the imperfect. According to them, it occurs with imperfective verbs and most frequently with atelic verbs, as in the following examples quoted from Stojanov (1983, 333):2

(10) Kак се казваше? Небрежно попита тя. (Dimov)

‘What was your name? She asked casually.’

(11) Kаква беше поръчката ви? – обърна се тя към Павел без да съзнава точно какво изговаря. (Bolgar)

‘What was your order? – she turned to Pavel without rеalizing exactly what she was saying.’

(12) Не живееше ли у вас една учителка? Росица Енева се казва. (Angelov)

‘Didn’t you have a female teacher living at your place? Rossitsa Eneva is her name.’

Some examples clearly show that such a meaning can be triggered even when the time of the eventuality follows the time of speech:

(13) Та в колко часа беше събранието утре? (Stankov 1966, 137)

‘So what time was the meeting tomorrow?’

(14) Tи утре рано ли заминаваше? (Pašov 1999, 145)

‘Were you leaving early tomorrow?’

Although the examples reported in Bulgarian grammars are taken mainly from novels, Stankov stresses that the imperfect za pripomnjane is widespread in spoken Bulgarian (Stankov 1966, 138). The responses given to the questionnaire by native speakers have proven that this statement holds true:

(15) Кога беше рожденият ден на Иван?

‘When was Ivan’s birthday?’

(16) Къде живееше той?

‘Where did he live?’

(17) Ти къде точно работеше?

‘Where exactly did you use to work?’

Even sentences with the time of the eventuality in the future are fully acceptable:

(18) Утре ли беше рожденият ден на Иван?

‘Was Ivan’s birthday tomorrow?’

With telic verbs the responses of native speakers reveal varying degrees of acceptability:

The sentence (19) is considered correct:

(19) В колко часа заминаваше влакът ти?

‘At what time was your train leaving?’

But when the time of the eventuality is expressly in the future the acceptability level decreases:

(20) ?Ти с кого се срещаше довечера?

‘Whom were you meeting tonight?’

(21) ?Ти къде се срещаше с негo утре?

‘Where were you meeting him tomorrow?’

In these cases other verbal forms are preferred, such as the present (22) or the future in the past (23):

(22) Ти с кого се срещаш довечера / утре?

‘Whom are you meeting tonight/tomorrow?’

(23) Ти с кого щеше да се срещаш довечера / утре?

‘Whom were you going to meet tonight/tomorrow?’

The following sentence is of particular interest:

(24) ?Утре в колко часа заминаваше влакът?

‘At what time was the train leaving tomorrow?’

First, not all native speakers consider (24) acceptable, which suggests that telic verbal semantics could represent some kind of constraint to the use of the imperfect za pripomnjane in Bulgarian.

Second, those speakers who consider (24) acceptable underline that the information to be retrieved exists for sure, that is because there is an official timetable that fixes the time of departure of the train or because it is known that the decision to leave had been taken. That, in turn, suggests that the imperfect za pripomnjane in Bulgarian lacks the epistemic connotations it has, for example, in the Romance languages.3 The reason for that depends again on the fact that when reporting information in Bulgarian, the renarrated mood has to be used (see (25) and (26) respectively in the past or future in the past):

(25) Ta кога бил рожденият ден на Иван?

‘So when [they say] is Ivan’s birthday?’

(26) Кога щял да е рожденият ден на Иван?

‘When [they say] would Ivan’s birthday be?’

In general, the imperfect conveys a “по-голяма категоричност” ‘greater categoricity’ (Rusinov, Georgiev 2000, 220), as the comparison with the future in the past (Indicative mood) shows. The latter, as in (27), is more overtly contrafactual:4

(27) Той кога щеше да си мие колата?

‘When was he going to wash his car?’

3.2 Serbian

In Serbian (Serbo-Croatian) grammars the synthetic past forms, imperfect and aorist, are actually listed among other normative tenses (see Stevanović 1964, 346–48; Stanojčić 2010, 175–77). Nevertheless, it is explicitly specified, as for example in Mrazović (2009, 149), that the imperfect tense:

praktično je iščezao u savremenom govoru, osim u malom delu narodnih govora, nema ga ni u jeziku štampe, radija i televizije. Potisnut je perfektom, a u pričanju (i pisanju) tzv. ‘istorijskim perfektom’.

‘has practically disappeared in modern speech, except in a small number of dialects; it does not even appear in the language of the press, radio and television. It has been supplanted by the perfect and in speech (and writing) by the so-called ‘historical perfect’.’5

In the mid-20th century considerable attention was devoted to the imperfect tense in Serbo-Croatian, presumably because it was acknowledged that it was in severe decline. In the works of the linguists that had worked on the topic (Stojićević 1951; Vuković 1955; Stevanović 1953–54; Sladoević 1953–54; Stevanović 1959), as well in some earlier ones, reference to the imperfect6 za pripomnjane can be found, but labeled as imperfek(a)t za pravu sadašnjost.

Vrlo je rijedak imperfekt za pravu sadašnjost, i to samo u pitanjima: što veljaše? (tj. što veliš? tako se u južnom primorju odzivaju žene i djevojke). V[ukov] rječn[ik]7 kod оj чуj, a vi otkle beste? (tj. otkle ste?). M[ilićević]8 33, što se ono u planini sjaše? nar[odne] pjes[me]9 I, 37.

‘The imperfect for the present tense is very rare, and is only found in questions: what did you say? (i.e. what do you say?), this is how women and girls on the south coast talk. Dictionary of Vuk under the heading ‘oi čuj’; and where were you from? (i.e. where are you from?) Milićević 33; what shone on the mountain? Folk SongsI, 37.)’

[Imperfek(a)t za pravu sadašnjost] označava jedno stanje koje […] nije bilo takvo samo u prošlosti nego je takvo i u vreme govora – stalno (Stevanović 1953–54, 49).

‘[The imperfect for the present tense] indicates a state that […] was not only so in the past, but at the time of uttering was constant.’

In contemporary Serbian, spoken in Belgrade and Novi Sad, there appears to be no trace left of imperfect tense forms with a temporal meaning. Nevertheless, as surprising as it may sound, the only common imperfect forms still in use are the two relics beše (biti) and zvaše se (zvati se) in the meaning za pripomnjane:

(28) Kako se zvaše onaj lekar?

‘What was the name of that physician?’

(29) Kada beše Ivanov rođendan?

‘When was Ivan’s birthday?’

where beše can occur even with a future time reference:

(30) Da li sutra beše Ivanov rođendan?

‘Was Ivan’s birthday tomorrow?’

With other verbs, the imperfect za pripomnjane is not acceptable, not even with atelic verbs (31)–(32) and definitively not with a future time reference (33):

(31) (*) Gde življaše ovaj?

‘Where was he living?’

(32) (*) U koliko sati polažaše tvoj voz?10

‘At what time was your train leaving tomorrow?’

(33) * U kojoj sobi ti rađaše sutra?

‘In which room were you working tomorrow?’

However, amazingly Serbian native speakers asked to elicit a response to the use of past tenses with present or future time reference showed that they perceive very clearly what this is about. In order to convey the modal meaning of the imperfect za pripomnjane, which is requesting information already given, they consistently use beše, the third person singular of the imperfect of the verb biti, followed directly, without any connector, by the conjugated verb. This structure can be used with all verbs, both telic and atelic, as well as with the time of the eventuality in the present or in the future:

(34) U kojoj sobi ti beše radiš (sutra)?

‘In which room were you working tomorrow?’

(35) U koliko sati beše polazi tvoj voz (sutra)?

‘At what time was your train leaving tomorrow?’

(36) S kime se beše nalaziš (sutra)?

‘Whom were you meeting tonight?’

Despite not being acquainted with the theories and studies about the imperfect za pripomnjane in other languages, Kovačević (2008) explicitly states that such a construction is used to refer to previously given information.

3.3 Czech, Polish and Russian

As to the activation of the modal meaning za pripomnjane in the imperfective past tense of other Slavic languages, testing on Czech, Polish and Russian has shown similar outcomes between them. All three languages display only one analytical past tense form and these forms are unable to trigger the za pripomnjane modal meaning. The results obtained from questionnaires given to native speakers demonstrate that the past tense (imperfective) can have merely past time validity and is not compatible with future time expressions:

Czech

(37) Kdy byly jeho narozeniny? past

‘When was his birthday?’

(38) V kolik hodin odjížděl vlak? past

‘When was your train leaving?’

(39) *V kolik hodin odjížděl vlak zítra?

‘*When was your train leaving tomorrow?’

Polish

(40) Kiedy były jego urodziny? past

‘When was his birthday?’

(41) O której odjeżdżał pociąg? past

‘When was your train leaving?’

(42) *O której odjeżdżał pociąg jutro?

‘*When was your train leaving tomorrow?’

Russian

(43) Когда у него был день рождения? past

‘When was his birthday?’

(44) Во сколько отправлялся поезд? past

‘When was your train leaving?’

(45) *Во сколько отправлялся поезд завтра?

‘*When was your train leaving tomorrow?’

Further confirmation for this has been sought by searching the National language corpora,11 where three cases have been found where past imperfectives do not refer to past time reference.

1. clauses where the speaker enquires about a previous intention using the modal verbs mít and mieć ‘to have’:

(46) Úkolem novináře je pak najít klienty, kteří uvázli v zahraničí či na zaplacený zájezd neodletí. Včera ráno mi hledání takových zoufalých “dovolenkářů” odpadlo. Bohužel. Stalo se to mně samému. Už zítra jsem měl cestovat na dovolenou do Řecka s CK Parkam Holidays. Nepoletím. Včera totiž zkrachovala. (Mladá fronta DNES, 2.07.2011)

‘The journalist’s task is then to find clients who are stranded abroad or who cannot fly in spite of a paid trip. Yesterday morning my search for such desperate “holiday makers” was interrupted. Alas. It happened to myself. Tomorrow I was due to travel on holiday to Greece with Parkam Holidays. I won’t be flying. Because yesterday, the company went bankrupt.’

(47) A zresztą zabrakło cementu. Jutro mieliśmy pojechać po materiały. Było po czwartej. Usiadłem pod kasztanem i napawałem się widokiem przemienionego domu. (J. Grzegorczyk, Chaszcze, 2009)

‘And anyway, we ran out of cement. Tomorrow we were supposed to go to get the materials. It was after four o’clock. I sat under a chestnut tree and enjoyed the view of the transformed house.’

2. verbs in the past tense but with a present or future reference that explicitly convey a sense of intention and programming, such as “to want” or “to have the intention of”:

(48) - А если вот за нее теперь такую сумму…

- Верная лошадь…

- Да… Вот что… Верная?! Знаешь что, голубчик, ты ко мне хотел завтра, кажется, зайти? Да? Хотел? Да? (А. S. Buchov, Pеrvyj оpyt, 1915)

‘- And if now for her such a sum…

- A faithful horse…

- Yes… That’s what… Faithful?! You know what, my dear, you wanted to come to my place tomorrow, didn’t you? Yes? You did? Yes?’

2. past imperfectives are used in Polish and Russian as future in the past forms with a strong focus on the intentionality of the action:

(49) W Wejherowie mieszkała ciotka Jakuba, kobieta była w porządku, nie miała nic przeciwko temu, by przenocował u niej z kolegą. Jutro zaś czekała ich Gdynia i dwie fajne panny poznane w wakacje. (M. Kaszyński, Skarb w glinianym naczyniu, 2008)

‘Jakub’s aunt lived in Wejherowo, the woman was fine, she didn’t mind if he spent the night at her place with a friend. Tomorrow, on the other hand, Gdynia and two nice girls they had met during the summer holidays awaited them.’

Still, there are some rare occurrences of the past imperfective when the time reference span extends to the present and future:

(50) - Panie Horn, może pan za jakie pół godziny przyjdzie do mnie?

- Dobrze, panie dyrektorze. Ja nawet miałem interes i w tym celu jutro siȩ wybierałem do pana. (Reymont 1898)

‘Mr. Horn, why don’t you come and see me in about half an hour?

- Very well, Mr. director. I even had some business, and for that purpose I was going to see you tomorrow.’

(51) Звук этой фамилии толкнул генерала, как электрическая искра.

Он живо протянул приезжему руку и произнес:

- Я вас ждал завтра.12

- Я поторопился и приехал ранее.

- Прошу вас в мой кабинет. (Leskov 1870)

‘The sound of that surname jolted the general like an electric spark.

He gave the newcomer a quick handshake and said:

- I was expecting you tomorrow.

- I was in a hurry and arrived early.

- Please come to my office.’

Actually, identical uses are reported for Bulgarian, respectively:

(52) Кой текст трябваше да подготвите за днес? (Nicolova 2004, 285)

‘Which text were you supposed to prepare for today?’

(53) А ти не искаше ли да отидеш на море следващата седмица?

‘And didn’t you want to go to the seaside next week?’

(54) На бай Иван Станоев, управител на ведомоствената почивна станция Сакар Балкан, предстоеше тежка задача. Утре пристигаше първата смяна от почиващите и тая нощ той трябваше да изготви план за разпределение на хората по етажи и стаи. (Neznakomov, cit. in Stankov 1966, 60)

‘Bai Ivan Stanoev, manager of the departmental rest facility Sakar Balkan, had a difficult task ahead of him. Tomorrow the first shift of vacationers would arrive, and that night he had to draw up a plan for the distribution of people by floors and rooms.’

As to (52) and (53), it was already noted above that modal verbs enhance the meaning za pripomnjane, but also shade the role played by the imperfect.

Sentences such as (54) suggest a past intention rather than having an explicit za pripomnjane meaning. Although cognitively very close to them, they should be rather considered expressions of another modal meaning called “предвиждани за реализиране” ‘predictable realization’ (Stankov 1966, 61).

4. Conclusions

After analysing the modal meaning za pripomnjane in Slavic languages, we can make the following observations:

1) The Bulgarian imperfect tense is regularly used in the modal meaning за припомняне. Nevertheless, compared to the corresponding uses of the imperfect in the Romance languages, its functional range appears restricted to those situations where the eventuality described by the verb is perceived as certain. This is because the wide scope of the za pripomnjane modal usage in the Romance languages and its evidential implicatures are covered in Bulgarian by the future in the past and the renarrated mood.

2) Contemporary Serbian has lost the imperfect tense, but the modal meaning za pripomnjane still survives thanks to the two relic forms (beše, zvaše) and more productively through the periphrastic structure: beše + present tense.

3) This structure is likely to have emerged from the notional gap that the relatively recent loss of the imperfect has created. As a substitutive periphrastical instrument it expresses a modal meaning that the analytic imperfective past tense form, which has taken over the temporal meanings of the imperfect, cannot fully convey. Beše operates as the element expanding the epistemic validity of the eventuality, which is separated from the propositional content carried by the conjugated verb.

4) The analytic past of the other Slavic languages considered is not suitable to express the modal meaning za pripomnjane in any consistent manner. This probably depends on the notional configuration of the imperfect itself, which is clearly not simply a past imperfective. However, how exactly the notional configuration of the Slavic imperfective analytic past tense constrains the activation of this (and other) modal meaning needs further investigation.

References

Bazzanella, C. 1994. Le facce del parlare. Un approccio pragmatico all’italiano parlato. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.

Berretta, M. 1992. “Sul sistema di tempo, aspetto, e modo nell’italiano contemporaneo”. In Linee di tendenza dell’italiano contemporaneo. Atti del XXV congresso internazionale della Società di Linguistica Italiana, a cura di B. Moretti, D. Petrini, e S. Bianconi, 135–53. Roma: Bulzoni.

Bres, J. 2005. “L’imparfait: l’un et/ou le multiple? A propos des imparfaits ‘narratif et ‘d’hypothèse’.” In Nouveaux développements de l’imparfait, texts réunis par E. Labeau, et P. Larrivée, 1–3. Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi.

Bres, J. 2009. “Dialogisme et temps verbaux de l’indicatif”. Langue française 163: 21–39.

Bres, J., et S. Mellet. 2009. “Une approche dialogique des faits grammaticaux”. Langue française 163: 3–20.

De Mulder, W. 2012. “Un sens épistémique pour l’imparfait et le passé simple?”. Langue française: 99–113.

Desclés, J.-P., et Z. Guentchéva. 2004. “Imparfaits bulgare et français: confrontation sur une valeur sémantique”. In Catégorìes grammaticales et problèmes cognitifs, 10–33. Sofia: Institut de la langue bulgare, Académie des Sciences de Bulgarie.

Guentchéva, Z. 1988. “L’aspect et le fonctionnement de l’imparfait imperfectif en bulgare”. Revue des Études slaves 60, 2: 393–404.

Guentchéva, Z. 1990. Temps et aspect: L’exemple du bulgare contemporain. Paris: CNR.

Guentchéva, Z. 1994. “Imparfait, aoriste et passé simple: confrontation de leurs emplois dans des texts bulgares et français”. Studia kognitywne 1: 163–81.

Kovačević, M. 2008. “O dejktičkoj upotrebi imperfekta”. Srpski jezik 13: 149–61.

Leskov, N. S. 1870. “Na nožach”. Russkij vestnik 10: 12.

Maretić, T. 1963 (1931). Gramatika hrvatskoga ili srpskoga književnog jezika. Zagreb: Matica Hrvatska.

Mrazović, P. 2009. Gramatika srpskog jezika za strance. Sremski Karlovci-Novi Sad: Izdavačka knjižarnica Zorana Stojanovica.

Nannoni, C. 2004. L’imperfetto tra linguistica e traduzione (francese-italiano). Trieste: EUT.

Nicolova, R. 2008. Bălgarska gramatika. Morfologija. Sofija: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Oxridski”.

Pašov, P. 1999. Bălgarska gramatika. Plovdid: Xermes.

Patard, A. 2011. “The epistemic uses of the English simple past and the French imparfait”. In Cognitive Approaches to Tense, Aspect, and Epistemic Modality, edited by A. Patard, and F. Brisard, 278–310. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Patard, A. 2014. “When tense and aspect convey modality. Reflections on the modal uses of past tenses in Romance and Germanie languages”. Journal of Pragmatics 71: 69–97.

Reymont, W. S. 1898. Ziemia Obiecana. Warszawa: Gebethner i Wolff.

Roglić, V. 2000. Imperfekat u francuskom i srpskom jeziku. Beograd: Mrljeg.

Rusinov, R., i S. Georgiev, săst. 2000. Enciklopedija na săvremenija bălgarski ezik. Veliko Tărnovo: IPK “Sveti Evtimij Patriarx Tărnovski.

Sladojević, Č. P. 1953–1954. “O imperfektu u srpskohrvatskom jeziku”. Južnoslovenski filolog 20: 213–28.

Squartini, M. 2001. “The internal structure of evidentiality in Romance”. Studies in Language 25: 297–334.

Stankov, V. 1966. Imperfekăt v săvremennija bălgarski knižoven ezik. Sofija: Akademija na naukite.

Stankov, V. 1994–1995. “L’imparfait bulgare d’un point de vue cognitif”. Balkansko ezikoznanie 37, 1–2: 96–114; 3–4: 191–209.

Stanojčić, Ž. 2010. Gramatika srpskog književnog jezika. Beograd: Kreativni Centar.

Stevanović, M. 1953–1954. “Značenje imperfekta prema upotrebi u jeziku Р.P. Njegoša”. Južnoslovenski filolog 20: 39–80.

Stevanović, M. 1959. “Oko značenja imperfekta”. Zbornik filološkog fakulteta 4, 2: 119–43.

Stevanović, M. 1964. Savremeni srpskohrvatski jezik (gramatički sistemi i književnojezična norma), vol. I: Uvod, fonetika, morfologija. Beograd: Naučno delo.

Stojanov, S. 1983. Gramatika na săvremennija bălgarski knižoven ezik. Tom 2. Morfologia, Sofija: Bălgarska akademija na naukite.

Stojićević, A. 1951. Značenje aorista i imperfekta и srpskohrvatskom jeziku. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti.

Trovesi, A. 2018. “Valori modali dell’imperfetto in bulgaro e in italiano. Una rassegna contrastiva”. In Lingua parlata: un confronto fra l’italiano e alcune lingue europee, a cura di F. Bermejo Calleja, e P. Katelhön, 247–65. Berlin: Peter Lang (Kontrastive Linguistik / Linguistica contrastiva 8).

Vuković, J. 1955. Sintaksička vrednost imperfekta u savremenom srspkohrvatskom jeziku. Sarajevo: Naučno društvo NR Bosne i Hercegovine.

1 Originariamente pubblicato in P. Stankovska, A. Derganc, in A. Šivic-Dular, ur. 2019. Rajko Nahtigal in 100 let slavistike na Univerzi v Ljubljani, 257–69. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta.

2 Occurrences of imperfect za pripomnjane with modal verbs are not considered in this work. Modal verbs add to this meaning but, at the same time, blur the role played by the imperfect itself in disclosing it.

3 Actually, similar comments were made by native speakers with regard to all the Bulgarian examples.

4 Similarly Stankov (1966, 76) “имперфектинте действия тук не притежават характера на неосъщественост, присъщ на действията в бъдеще в миналото.” ‘imperfect actions in this case do not possess the non-realization meaning typical for future in the past actions.’

5 In fact, nowadays one can still come across the imperfect only in novels or poetry, in some proverbs and sayings, or occasionally in the spoken south-western štokavian dialects (Montenegro).

6 Only imperfective verbs have the imperfect tense.

7 [Srpski rječnik istumačen njemačkijem o latinskijem riečima, skupio ga i na svijet izdao Vuk Stef. Karadžić. U Beču, 1852 - R.B., L.G].

8 [Zimnje večeri, price iż narodnog zivota u Srbiji, napisao M. Dj. Milićević. U Beogradu 1885 - R.B., L.G].

9 [Srpske narodne pjesme. Skupio ih i na svijet izdao Vuk Stef. Karadžić. U Beču, 1841 - R.B., L.G].

10 In their temporal meaning (31) and (32) are perceived by native speakers as hypothetically possible: “Samo teoretski, nije u živoj upotrebi u savremenom jeziku. Sem možda u dijalektu.”.

11 For Czech: Český národní korpus (<https://www.korpus.cz/>); for Polish: Narodowy Korpus Jȩzyka Polskiego (http://nkjp.pl/); for Russian: Nacional’nyj korpus russkogo jazyka (<http://www.ruscorpora.ru/index.html>).

12 Petra Stankovska points to the fact that in Czech the verb čekat ‘to wait’ is likely to function in the same manner: Čekal jsem vás tu až zítra ‘I was expecting you here tomorrow’. (B. Cartland, Panna v Paříži, 2006. Překl. Ludmila Havlíková) (personal communication).