<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Guentcheva, Zlatka</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%"> Implications aspecto-temporelles en français et en bulgare</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Contrastive Studies</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">съпоставителни изследвания</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1989</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">14</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">26–37</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;The basic values of the French passé simple and the Bulgarian aorist, on the one hand, and the French passé composé and the Bulgarian perfect, on the other hand, are compared. In French the aspectual distinction between completedness and noncompletedness is not grammaticalized, in contrast to Bulgarian where there is a morphological opposition between perfective and imperfective aspect. The tenses of the first pair always express an event. In the second pair, passé composé can express an event (in the sphere of the past) and a resultative situation (in the discourse sphere), whereas the perfect expresses a resultative situation in both spheres.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record></records></xml>