Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 193, Issue 11, pp 3625–3637 | Cite as

Prior and temporal sequences for natural language

  • Tim FernandoEmail author
S.I.: The Logic and Philosophy of A.N. Prior
  • 133 Downloads

Abstract

Logics of discrete time are, in Arthur Prior’s words, “applicable in limited fields of discourse in which we are concerned with what happens in a sequence of discrete states,” independent of “any serious metaphysical assumption that time is discrete.” This insight is applied to natural language semantics, a widespread assumption in which is that time is, as is the real line, dense. “Limited fields of discourse” are construed as finite sets of temporal propositions, inducing bounded notions of temporal granularity that can be refined to expand the discourse. The construal is developed in line with Prior’s view of what is “metaphysically fundamental”.

Keywords

Prior Temporal sequence Natural language 

References

  1. Allen, J. F. (1983). Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Commun. ACM, 26(11), 832–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Areces, C., & Blackburn, P. (2005). Reichenbach, prior and montague: A semantic get-together. In S. Artemov, et al. (Eds.), We will show them: Essays in honour of Dov Gabbay (pp. 77–88). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, M., & Partee, B. (1972). Towards the logic of tense and aspect in English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  4. Blackburn, P. (2006). Arthur prior and hybrid logic. Synthese, 150(3), 329–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In N. Rescher (Ed.), The logic of decision and action (pp. 81–95). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Emerson, E. A. (1995). Temporal and modal logic. In J. van Leeuwen (Ed.), Handbook of theoretical computer science (Vol. B, pp. 995–1072). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fernando, T. (2013). Dowty’s aspect hypothesis segmented. In Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam colloquium (pp. 107–114).Google Scholar
  10. Galton, A. (1987). The logic of occurrence. In A. Galton (Ed.), Temporal logics and their applications (pp. 169–196). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hamblin, C. L. (1971). Instants and intervals. Studium generale, 24, 127–134.Google Scholar
  12. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2004). The history of mental models. Psychology of reasoning: Theoretical and historical perspectives (pp. 179–212). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  14. Kamp, H. (2013). The time of my life. Retrieved August 10, 2014, from http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/elucidations/2013/08/07/an-essay-by-hans-kamp/.
  15. Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  16. Klein, W. (2009). How time is encoded. In W. Klein & P. Li (Eds.), The expression of time (pp. 39–81). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Montague, R. (1973). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In K. J. J. Hintikka, et al. (Eds.), Approaches to natural language (pp. 221–242). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nishimura, H. (1980). Interval logics with applications to study of tense and aspect in English. Publications Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, 16, 417–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Øhrstrøm, P., & Hasle, P. (1993). A.N. Prior’s rediscovery of tense logic. Erkenntnis, 39, 23–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pratt-Hartmann, I. (2005). Temporal prepositions and their logic. Artificial Intelligence, 166, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Prior, A. N. (1967). Past, present and future. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Prior, A. N. (1968). Egocentric logic. Noûs, 2(3), 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  24. Taylor, B. (1977). Tense and continuity. Linguistics and philosophy, 1, 199–220.Google Scholar
  25. van Lambalgen, M., & Hamm, F. (2004). The proper treatment of events. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Trinity College DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations