Cover not available
Part of
The Expression of Tense, Aspect, Modality and Evidentiality in Albert Camus’s L'Étranger and Its Translations / L'Étranger de Camus et ses traductions : questions de temps, d'aspect, de modalité et d'évidentialité (TAME): An empirical study / Etude empirique
Edited by Eric Corre, Danh Thành Do-Hurinville and Huy Linh Dao
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes Supplementa 35] 2020
► pp. 221–243

Chapter 12
French tense challenged by Finnish aspects

| CNRS & Université Sorbonne Nouvelle
This article calls into question, on the basis of selected excerpts from the Finnish translation of Camus’ novel, Sivullinen, two commonly held ideas: (1) L’Étranger’s style is “oral”; (2) Finnic languages have a poor TAM system – if only tenses are considered. Different from Perfekti, that conveys a past event with present relevance, the Finnish Imperfekti is the verbal form of narrative dynamism: Imperfekti allows the speaker to take a stand as an observer of an action anchored in the past, it is theoretically the perfect tense for Meursault’s Finnish account. But the translator is confronted to a dilemma: in order to preserve the naturality of such a typologically different language, should he refrain from resorting to the multiple ressources of the Finnish aspectual derivation system, and stick to the standardized register of simple Imperfects? The restrictive temporality of Non-Finite Constructions provides a compromise solution.
Keywords: orality, typology, translation, French tense, Finnish aspect, Non Finite Constructions
Article outline
  • 1. L’Étranger’s temporality: pc vs. ps
  • 2.Orality of L’Étranger as a discourse
    • 2.1Impromptu speech vs. Simulated speech
    • 2.2Information structuring: The oral–written relationship
    • 2.3Oral features in L’Étranger?
  • 3.Finnish, a North-Western Uralic language
    • 3.1Typology of Finnic languages
    • 3.2Finnish verb: Tenses and aspects
      • 3.2.1Finnish past tenses
        • Summary: Difference Imperfekti / Perfekti
      • 3.2.2The Finnish TAM system
  • 4. L’Étranger / Sivullinen : Passé composé / Imparfait vs. Perfekti / Imperfekti?
    • 4.1Finnish aspect and resultativity
      • 4.1.1Verb derivations
      • 4.1.2Object case alternation
    • 4.2Non-Finite Constructions (nfcs) and temporality
      • Summary
  • 5.Final conclusion
  • Notes
  • Glossary
  • References
Published online: 11 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lis.35.12fer
References (44)
References
Askonen, E. (2001). Objektin aspektuaalinen sijanvalinta [Aspectual choice of the object case]. Oulun yliopisto: Publications of the Department of Finnish, Saami and Logopedics, 19.Google Scholar
Austerlitz, R. (1968). L’ouralien. In André Martinet (éd.), Le langage (Encyclopédie de la Pléïade 25, pp. 1331–1387). Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. (1966). Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Camus, A. (2005) [1942]. L’Étranger. Paris: Gallimard, Folioplus classiques.Google Scholar
(2015 [1947]). Sivullinen. (L’Étranger, 1942) Suomentanut Kalle Salo. Helsinki: Otava.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (2005). La typologie des langues ouraliennes, comparées avec les autres grandes familles d’Eurasie septentrionale. In M.M.J. Fernandez-Vest (Dir.), Les langues ouraliennes aujourd’hui. Approches linguistiques et cognitives – The Uralic languages today. A linguistic and cognitive approach (Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes 340, pp. 75–86). Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. & Velupillai, V. (2013). The Perfect. In M. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at [URL])
De Sivers, F. (1968). L’adverbialisation des conjonctions dans quelques parlers populaires. Word, 24 (1-2-3), 463–468. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Swart, H. E. (2016). Perfect usage across languages. Questions and Answers in Linguistics, 3 (2), 57–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Swart, H. & Molendijk, A. (2002). Le passé composé narratif : une analyse discursive de L’Étranger de Camus. In B. Laca (Ed.), Temps et Aspect – De la morphologie à l’interprétation (pp. 193–211). Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Vest, M.M.J. (1994). Les Particules Énonciatives dans la construction du discours (Linguistique nouvelle). Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
(2008). Subordination et degrés de phrasticité dans quelques langues ouraliennes nord-occidentales : exemples samiques et fenniques. La Linguistique, 44, 2, 99–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Les langues ouraliennes. In A. Peyraube, E. Bonvini & D. Kouloughli (Éds.), Encyclopédie des Sciences du langage: III. Dictionnaire des langues (pages ?). Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
(2012a). SAMI. An introduction to the language and culture, with a Sami-English-Sami lexicon. Helsinki: Finn Lectura.Google Scholar
(2012b). Information structuring aspects of object case alternation: Finnish translated from Sami. In H. H. Bartens, C. Hasselblatt, & E. Winkler (Eds.), Festschrift to Lars-Gunnar Larsson on his 65th birthday. Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica, (pp. 55–62).Google Scholar
(2014). Finnish Partitive and resultativity in translation(s): a discourse-cognitive approach. In S. Luraghi & T. Huumo (Eds.), Partitive cases and related categories (EALT 54, pp. 258–287). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
(2015). Detachments for Cohesion – Toward an Information Grammar of Oral Languages (EALT 56). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
(2016). Detachment Linguistics and Information Grammar of Oral Languages. In M.M.J. Fernandez-Vest & Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. (Eds.), Information Structuring of Spoken Language from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective (TILSM 283, pp. 25–32). Berlin/Munich/ Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
(2017). Ecology of Northern Sami: its typological evolution from oral to written language. In U. Tuomarla, I. Piechnik & B. Bíró (Eds.), Festschrift Finland Suomi 100: language, culture and history (pp. 27–44). Kraków / Helsinki: Jagiellonian Library & University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
(2018). Information Structuring and typology: Finnic and Samic word order revisited through the prism of orality. In: A. Marcantonio (Ed.), The state of the art of Uralic studies: tradition vs. innovation (Studi umanistici – Philologica, p. 33–48). Roma: Sapienza Università Editrice.Google Scholar
(2019). Parlons finnois – les Finlandais, langues et cultures, avec un lexique bilingue français-finnois-français (coll. Parlons). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A. (1976). Reports on text linguistics: suomen kielen generatiivista lauseoppia 2 [Generative syntax of the Finnish language. Syntax and pragmatics of the enclitic particle -han/-hän ] (MÅASF 7, pp. 1–61). Åbo: Åbo Akademi.Google Scholar
Herlin, I., & Visapää, L. (2005). Elävä kielioppi. Suomen infinittirakenteiden dynamiikkaa. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
ISK = Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, R., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T. R., & Alho, I. (2004). Iso suomen kielioppi [A Comprehensive Grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Karlsson, F. (2007) [1999]. Finnish: An Essential Grammar. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kok, M. (2015) [2014]. Borrowing metalanguage: Finnish Past Tense terminology in grammar descriptions and teaching. In H. Paulasto, L. Meriläinen, H. Riionheimo, & M. Kok (Eds.), Language Contacts at the Crossroads of Disciplines (pp. 347–396). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. & Wälchli, B. (2001). The Circum-Baltic languages: an areal-typological approach. In Ö. Dahl, & M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (Eds.), The Circum-Baltic languages. Typology and contact. Volume 2: Grammar and typology (pp. 615–750). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leinonen, M. (2005). La syntaxe komi-zyriène au contact du russe. In M.M.J. Fernandez-Vest (Dir.), Les langues ouraliennes aujourd’hui. Approches linguistiques et cognitives – The Uralic languages today. A linguistic and cognitive approach (Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes 340, pp. 479–494). Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Lindstedt, J. (2000). The perfect – aspectual, temporal and evidential. In Ö. Dahl (Ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe (pp. 365–383). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Luraghi, S., & Huumo, T. (Eds.). Partitive cases and related categories (EALT 54). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logo
Markkanen, R. (1979). Tense and aspect in English and Finnish. A contrastive study (Studia Philologica Jyväskyläensia 13). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
Martinet, A. (2000 [1990]). La syntaxe de l’oral. Les introuvables d’André Martinet; La linguistique, 36 (1–2), 449–455.Google Scholar
Metslang, H. (2000). Analytism and synthetism in the development of tense and aspect systems of literary Estonian. In M.M.J. Fernandez-Vest (Dir.), Grammaticalisation aréale et sémantique cognitive: les langues fenniques et sames. Actes du Colloque International du C.N.R.S. tenu les 9 et 10 avril 1999 en Sorbonne / Areal grammaticalization and cognitive semantics: the Finnic and Sami languages (Oural-Ural 1, pp. 119–133). Tallinn: Fondation de la Langue Estonienne.Google Scholar
(2009). Estonian grammar between Finnic and SAE : some comparisons. In H. Metslang (Ed.), Estonian in typological perspective; Language Typology and Universals – Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF), Vol. 62, 1/2, 49–71.Google Scholar
Metslang, H., & Tommola, H. (1995). Zum tempusystem des Etnischen. In Rolf Thieroff (Ed.), Tense systems in European languages. II. (Linguistische Arbeiten 338, pp. 299–326). Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, J., & M.M.J. Fernandez-Vest. (2006). Spoken and written language. In G. Bernini, & M. L. Schwartz (Eds.), Pragmatic organization of discourse (Eurotyp 20–8, Empirical approaches to language typology, pp. 9–64). Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Miller, J., & Weinert, R. (2009 [1998]). Spontaneous spoken language (Oxford Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, V. P. (1995). Some typological parameters of converbs. In M. Haspelmath, & E. König (Eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspectives (97–136). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sartre, J. P. (1947). Explication de L’Étranger . In Situations, I (pp. 92–112). Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Tamm, A. (2006). Estonian transitive verb and object case. In M. Butt, & T. H. King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG06 Conference Universitä Konstanz. Stanford, CA: CSL [URL]
(2014). The partitive concept versus linguistic partitives: from abstract concepts to evidentiality in the Uralic languages. In S. Luraghi, & T. Huumo (Eds.), Partitive cases and related categories (EALT 54, pp. 89–152). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times, The Philosophical review, 6, 143–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, L. (2006). A grammar book of Finnish. Helsinki: Finn Lectura.Google Scholar
Wilmet, M. (1997). Grammaire critique du français, Bruxelles: De Boeck Supérieur.Google Scholar