Would you vote for Obama if he were white ? : l’alternance were/was et la problématique de l’altérité

This corpus-based analysis shows that the traditional explanation of the use of were instead of was for 1st and 3rd persons singular in terms of counterfactuality is inadequate. The major claim of my paper is that grammar should be connected with interlocutionary patterns rather than referentially-based distinctions. Accordingly were will be defined as a “duophonic” relational marker which substitutes for was when a contrastive or comparative dimension is involved, e.g. in free indirect speech, concessive strategies, conflicting viewpoints or hypotheses. Conversely the lack of any contrastive dimension characterizes “monophonic” was. I assume that this interlocutionary distinction is the root distinction of linguistic systems.