Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 129–155 | Cite as

Why will is not a modal

Article

Abstract

In opposition to a common assumption, this paper defends the idea that the auxiliary verb will has no other semantic contribution in contemporary English than a temporal shift towards the future with respect to the utterance time. Strong reasons for rejecting the idea that will quantifies over possible worlds are presented. Given the adoption of Lewis’s and Kratzer’s views on modality, the alleged ‘modal’ uses of will are accounted for by a pragmatic mechanism which restricts the domain of the covert epistemic necessity operator scoping over the sentence.

Keywords

Modality Future tense Will Genericity Assertion 

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 Proceedings of the Seventh West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. H. Borer, 1–14. Stanford: Stanford Linguistic Association.Google Scholar
  2. Abusch D. (1997). Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(1): 1–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abusch, D. 1998. Generalizing tense semantics for future contexts. In Events and grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 13–33. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  4. Anscombe G.E.M. (1957). Intention. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlson, G.N. 1989. English generic sentences. In Properties, types and meaning, Vol. 2: Semantic issues, ed. G. Chierchia, B.H. Partee and R. Turner, 167–192. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. Comrie B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Condoravdi, C. 2002. Temporal interpretation of modals. Modals for the present and for the past. In The construction of meaning, ed. D.I. Beaver, L.D.C. Martinez, B.Z. Clark, and S. Kaufmann, 59–88. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Copley, B. 2002. The semantics of the future. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  9. Copley, B. 2005. What should should mean? Paper presented at the Language Under Uncertainty Workshop, Kyoto University, January 2005.Google Scholar
  10. Davidson D. (2001). Essays on actions and events, Second edition. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Dendale P. (1994). Devoir épistémique: marqueur modal ou évidentiel? Langue française 102: 24–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ducrot O. (1984). Le dire et le dit. Minuit, ParisGoogle Scholar
  13. Enç, M. 1996. Tense and modality. In The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. S. Lappin, 345–358. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Geurts, B. 2004. On an ambiguity in quantified conditionals. Manuscript, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  15. Geurts B. (2005). Entertaining alternatives: disjunctions as modals. Natural Language Semantics 13: 383–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, ed. P. Cole and J.L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Grice H.P. (2001). Aspects of reason. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Haegeman L.M. (1983). The semantics of will in present-day British English: a unified account. Royal Academy of Belgium, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  19. Hornstein N. (1990). As time goes by: tense and universal grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  20. Hughes G.E., Cresswell M.J. (1996). A new introduction to modal logic. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Jaszczolt, K.M. 2006. Futurity in default semantics. In Where semantics meets pragmatics, ed. K. von Heusinger and K. Turner, 471–492. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  22. Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993). From discourse to logic: introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  23. Karttunen, L. 1972. Possible and must. Syntax and semantics, Vol. 1, ed. J. Kimball, 1–20. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kaufmann, S., C. Condoravdi, and V. Harizanov. 2006. Formal approaches to modality. In The expression of modality, ed. W. Frawley, 71–106. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  25. King J.C. (2003). Tense, modality, and semantic values. Philosophical Perspectives 17: 195–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kratzer, A. 1991a. Conditionals. In Semantics: an international handbook of contemporary research, ed. A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, 651–656. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  27. Kratzer, A. 1991b. Modality. In Semantics: an international handbook of contemporary research, ed. A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, 639–650. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  28. Lewis, D.K. 1975. Adverbs of quantification. In Formal semantics of natural language, ed. E.L. Keenan, 3–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lewis D.K. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ludlow P. (1999). Semantics, tense, and time: an essay in the metaphysics of natural language. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  31. Malle, B.F., and J. Knobe. 2001. The distinction between desire and intention: a folk-conceptual analysis. In Intentions and intentionality: foundations of social cognition , ed. B.F. Malle, L.J. Moses, and D.A. Baldwin, 45–67. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Palmer F.R. (1979). Modality and the English modals. Longman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Palmer F.R.(1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Recanati F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Recanati F. (2007). Perspectival thought: A plea for (moderate) relativism. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  36. Sarkar A. (1998). The conflict between future tense and modality: the case of will in English. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 91–117Google Scholar
  37. Smith C. (1978). The syntax and interpretation of temporal expressions in English. Linguistics and Philosophy 2: 43–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Soames S. (1982). How presuppositions are inherited: a solution to the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 483–545Google Scholar
  39. Sperber, D., and D. Wilson. 1981. Irony and the use-mention distinction. Radical pragmatics, ed. P. Cole, 295–318. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  40. Sperber D., Wilson D. (1995). Relevance: communication and cognition, Second edition. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  41. Stalnaker R.C. (1999). Context and content. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  42. Stalnaker R.C. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stanley J. (2000). Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 391–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sweetser E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Tasmowski, L., and P. Dendale. 1998. Must/will and doit/future simple as epistemic modal markers. In English as a human language: To honour Louis Goossens, ed. L. Goossens, J.v.d. Auwera, F. Durieux, and L. Lejeune, 325–336. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
  46. von Fintel, K. 2000. What is presupposition accommodation? Manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar
  47. von Fintel, K., and A.S. Gillies. (forthcoming). An opinionated guide to epistemic modality. In Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Vol. 2, ed. T. Szabó Gendler and J. Hawthorne. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Yavas F. (1982). Future reference in Turkish. Linguistics 20: 411–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ziegeler D. (2006). Omnitemporal will. Language Sciences 28: 76–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zimmermann T.E. (1999). Scepticism de se. Erkenntnis 51: 267–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zimmermann T.E. (2000). Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8: 255–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FNRS, Laboratoire de Linguistique Textuelle et de Pragmatique CognitiveUniversité Libre de BruxellesBruxellesBelgium

Personalised recommendations