The Semantics of the Future

Copley, Bridget

doi:10.4324/9780203880258

Cited by 140 publications

(148 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

135

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To implement this idea, I borrow the metaphysical modal operator plan of Copley (2002Copley ( , 2008 and Thomas (2015), which is designed to account for futurate readings of present tense sentences in English, such as (64).…”

Section: Unembedded Future Interpretations and Plansmentioning

confidence: 99%

Past time reference in a language with optional tense

Bochnak

2016

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I analyze the verbal suffix -uNil in Washo as an optional past tense. It is optional in the sense that it is not part of a paradigm of tenses, and morphologically tenseless clauses are also compatible with past time reference. Specifically, I claim that -uNil is the morphological exponent of a tense feature [past], which presupposes that the reference time of the clause, denoted by a temporal pronoun, precedes the evaluation time. Meanwhile, morphologically tenseless clauses lack a semantic tense restricting the value of the reference time pronoun. In comparing this analysis with one containing a covert non-future tense in morphologically tenseless clauses, I show that the range of empirical contexts that distinguish these analyses is quite narrow. However, I offer a novel argument against a covert tense analysis based on the lack of Maximize Presupposition effects. Crucially, the fact that -uNil does not form a paradigm of tenses results in a failure for Maximize Presupposition to apply. The proposed analysis places cross-linguistic variation at the level of the paradigm of tense features, namely whether they are present or absent, and if present, whether obligatorily so. This case study from Washo thus reveals what a language where tense features are optional can look like, and more generally contributes to the growing body of literature on cross-linguistic semantics devoted to uncovering the ways in which temporal interpretation can be achieved in natural language.

show abstract

Section: Unembedded Future Interpretations and Plansmentioning

confidence: 99%

Past time reference in a language with optional tense

Bochnak

2016

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(62) shows that while both beschloß 'decided' and versuchte 'tried' select a future irrealis embedded event, they differ with respect to the use of temporal adverbs. The PP in zwei Monaten 'in two months' is compatible with beschloß (62a), but not with versuchte (62b) (Wurmbrand 2003: 70-71 (2002), Kaufmann (2005), and Copley (2009) and claims that future infinitives contain a future modal operator woll instead of a future tense feature. The semantic function of woll is to express posterior modality (Wurmbrand 2014: 412).…”

Section: Wurmbrand (2014)mentioning

confidence: 70%

The theory and syntactic representation of control structures: An analysis from Amharic

Leung¹,

Halefom²

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper conducts a detailed syntactic analysis of control structures in Amharic and sheds light on the current approaches to their syntactic representation and the operation thereof. Amharic control structures consist of the following components: (i) they are marked by the specific clause marker (CM) lɨ-; (ii) the control clause always contains an imperfective verb; (iii) the control predicate is fully inflected by phi-features which are coindexical to the matrix subject; (iv) the subject of the control clause is a PRO; and (v) only exhaustive subject control is licensed. Amharic control poses a challenge to Landau (2014)’s proposal that the control possibility stems from particular combinations of tense and agreement features of the control predicate. Instead we claim that Amharic data fit better in the analysis of future infinitives (Wurmbrand 2014) and prospective aspect (Kratzer 2011; Matthewson 2012). In addition, the PRO-analysis of Amharic control also entails that the Movement Theory of Control (MTC) is disfavored.

show abstract

“…If this is correct then it must be that the literal meaning of (93)- (95) is of the form 'there is no time t in the future such that p is true at t', and the categorical-denial interpretation of these utterances is derived by an implicature of the type 'at no time in the future' +> 'under no possible circumstances'. This implicature makes sense if we take the standard view of future time reference as universal quantification over possible future worlds (see Copley 2002): since the outcome of future events is not predetermined, statements about the future are necessarily statements about all the possible ways that the future could be, where the number of ways the future could be increases exponentially the further from the present a particular future moment is situated. A negative future statement thus asserts that all possible future worlds are such that p is false in them, and the addition of ever makes explicit that this holds true for even for the remotest instants of time in each of these possible future worlds, subject to any explicit or implicit restrictions on the temporal domain over which ever quantifies.…”

Section: H R I S T O P H E R L U C a S A N D Dav I D W I L L I Smentioning

confidence: 99%

Never again: the multiple grammaticalization ofneveras a marker of negation in English

Lucas¹,

Willis²

2012

English Language and Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In both standard and nonstandard varieties of English there are several contexts in which the word never functions as a sentential negator rather than as a negative temporal adverb. This article investigates the pragmatic and distributional differences between the various non-temporal uses of never and examines their synchronic and historical relationship to the ordinary temporal quantifier use, drawing on corpora of Early Modern and present-day British English. Primary focus is on (i) a straightforward negator use that in prescriptively approved varieties of English has an aspectual restriction to non-chance, completive achievement predicates in the preterite, but no such restriction in nonstandard English; and (ii) a distinct categorical-denial use that quantifies over possible perspectives on a situation. Against Cheshire (1998), it is argued that neither of these uses represents continuity with non-temporal uses of never in Middle English, but both are instead relatively recent innovations resulting from semantic reanalysis and the semanticization of implicatures.

show abstract

The Semantics of the Future

Cited by 140 publications

References 0 publications

Past time reference in a language with optional tense

Past time reference in a language with optional tense

The theory and syntactic representation of control structures: An analysis from Amharic

Never again: the multiple grammaticalization ofneveras a marker of negation in English

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About