Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 221–264 | Cite as

When aspect matters: the case of would-conditionals

Article

Abstract

Differences in the interpretation of would-conditionals with simple (perfective) and perfect antecedent clauses are marked enough to discourage a unified view. However, this paper presents a unified, Lewis–Stalnaker style semantics for the modal in such constructions. Differences in the interpretation of the conditionals are derived from the interaction between the interpretation of different types of aspect and the modal. The paper makes a distinction between perfective and perfect aspect in terms of whether they make reference to or quantify over Lewis-style events. In making reference to Lewis-events, perfective aspect is shown to be incompatible with counterfactual would-conditionals. The so-called ‘epistemic flavor’ of perfective conditionals about the future is derived from the use of diagonalization as an interpretive strategy called upon to resolve reference.

Keywords

Conditionals Counterfactuals Tense Aspect Modality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abusch D. (1988). Sequence of tense, intensionality, and scope. In: Borer H. (eds). Proceedings of WCCFL 7. Stanford, Stanford Linguistic Association, pp. 1-14Google Scholar
  2. Abusch, D. (1996). The ‘now’ parameter in future contexts. Ms., IMS Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  3. Abusch D. (1997). Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 1–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson A.R. (1951). A note on subjunctive and counterfactual conditionals. Analysis, 12, 35–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arregui, A. (2004). On the accessibility of possible worlds: The role of tense and aspect. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  6. Arregui, A. (2005). Layering modality. Ms, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
  7. Arregui A. (2006). On the consequences of event quantification in counterfactual conditionals. In: Baumer D., Montero D., Scanlon M. (eds). Proceedings of WCCFL 25. Somerville MA, Cascadilla Press, pp. 67–75Google Scholar
  8. Bennett J. (1984). Counterfactuals and temporal direction. The Philosophical Review, 93, 7–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bennett J. (2003). A philosophical guide to conditionals. Oxford, ClarendonGoogle Scholar
  10. Bennett J., Partee B.H. (1978). Towards the logic of tense and aspect in English. Bloomington, Indiana University Linguistics ClubGoogle Scholar
  11. Bhatt, R., & Pancheva, R. (2001). Conditionals. Ms, University of Texas at Austin and University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  12. Borg E. (2002). Pointing at Jack, talking about Jill: Understanding deferred uses of demonstrative pronouns. Mind and Language, 17, 489–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Comrie B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Condoravdi C. (2001). Temporal interpretation of modals. In: Beaver D. et al. (eds). Stanford papers in semantics. Stanford, CSLI Publications, pp. 59–88Google Scholar
  15. Crouch, R. (1993). The temporal properties of English conditionals and modals. PhD dissertation, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  16. Dretske F. (1972). Contrastive statements. The Philosophical Review, 81, 411–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dudman V.H. (1983). Tense and time in English verb clusters of the primary pattern. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 3, 25–44Google Scholar
  18. Dudman V.H. (1984). Conditional interpretations of if-sentences. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 4, 143–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Enç M. (1996). Tense and modality. In: Lappin S. (eds). The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. London, Blackwell, pp. 345–358Google Scholar
  20. von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  21. von Fintel K. (1997). The presupposition of subjunctive conditionals. In: Sauerland U., Percus O. (eds). The interpretive tract, MITWPL 25. Cambridge MA, MIT, pp. 29–44Google Scholar
  22. Fowler H.W. (1965). Fowler’s modern English usage. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  23. Gennari S. (2003). Tense meanings and temporal interpretation. Journal of Semantics, 20, 35–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Giorgi A., Pianesi F. (1997). Tense and aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  25. Heim I. (1994). Comments on Abusch’s theory of tense. In: Kamp H. (eds). Ellipsis, tense and questions. University of Amsterdam, pp. 141–170Google Scholar
  26. Heim, I. (2005). Features on bound pronouns. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  27. Huddleston R., Pullum G. (Eds) (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  28. Iatridou, S. (1991). Topics in conditionals. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  29. Iatridou S. (2000). The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 231–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Iatridou S. (2003). A little bit more on the English perfect. In: Alexiadou A. et al. (eds). Perfect explorations. The Hague, de Gruyter, pp. 133–151Google Scholar
  31. Iatridou, S., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Pancheva, R. (2001). Observations about the form and meaning of the perfect. Reprinted in A. Alexiadou et al. (Eds.), (2003), Perfect explorations (pp. 153–204). The Hague: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  32. Ippolito M. (2003). Presuppositions and implicatures in counterfactuals. Natural Language Semantics, 11, 145–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Izvorski R. (1997). The present perfect as an epistemic modal. In: Lawson A. (eds). Proceedings of SALT 7. Cornell University, CLC Publications, pp. 222–239Google Scholar
  34. Kamp H., Reyle U. (1995). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaplan D. (1989). Demonstratives. In: Almog J. et al. (eds). Themes from Kaplan. New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 481–563Google Scholar
  36. Katz, G. (1995). Stativity, genericity, and temporal reference. PhD dissertation, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
  37. Katz G. (2000). Anti neo-Davidsonianism: Against a Davidsonian semantics for state sentences. In: Tenny C. et al. (eds). Events as grammatical objects. Stanford, CSLI Publications, pp. 343–416Google Scholar
  38. Katz G. (2003). On the stativity of the English perfect. In: Alexiadou A. et al. (eds). Perfect explorations. The Hague, de Gruyter, pp. 205–233Google Scholar
  39. Kaufmann S. (2005). Conditional truth and future reference. Journal of Semantics, 22, 231–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klein W. (1994). Time in Language. London, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Kratzer A. (1979). Conditional necessity and possibility. In: Bäuerle R. et al. (eds). Semantics from different points of view. Berlin, Springer, pp. 117–147Google Scholar
  42. Kratzer A. (1998). More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In: Strolovitch D., Lawson A. (eds). Proceedings of SALT 8. Ithaca NY, CLC Publications, pp. 92–109Google Scholar
  43. Kratzer, A. (2006). Minimal pronouns. Ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  44. Kusumoto, K. (1998). Tense in embedded contexts. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  45. Kusumoto K. (2005). On the quantification over times in natural language. Natural Language Semantics, 13, 317–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lewis D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Lewis D. (1975). Adverbs of quantification. In: Keenan E.L. (eds). Formal semantics of natural language. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–15Google Scholar
  48. Lewis, D. (1979). Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow. Noûs, 13, 455--476. Reprinted in D. Lewis (1986), Philosophical papers (Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Lewis D. (1986). Events. In Philosophical papers (Vol. 2). Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  50. McArthur T. (eds). (1992). The Oxford companion to the English language. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  51. McCoard R. (1978). The English perfect: Tense choice and pragmatic inferences. Amsterdam, North HollandGoogle Scholar
  52. Ogihara T. (1996). Tense, attitudes, and scope. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Linguistics DepartmentUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations