Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Future and non-future modal sentences

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, I argue for two principles to determine the temporal interpretation of modal sentences in English, given a theory in which modals are interpreted against double conversational backgrounds and an ontology in which possible worlds branch towards the future, The Disparity Principle requires that a modal sentence makes distinctions between worlds in the modal base. The Non- disparity Principle requires that a modal sentence does not make distinctions on the basis of facts settled at speech time. Selection of the modal base will set these principles against each other, or allow for their cooperative interaction. For a root modal base, there is a conflict and disparity wins. The resulting interpretation is future. For a non-root modal base, the principles cooperate. Non-disparity determines a non-future interpretation and disparity requires the sentence to go beyond what is known by the speaker.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abusch D. (1998). Generalizing. tense semantics for future contexts. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp. 13-33). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Clinque G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Condoravdi, C. (2001). Temporal interpretation of modals. In D. Beaver et al. (Eds.), Stanford papers on semantics (pp. 59-87). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

  • E-z geometry (n.d.). Retrieved January 5, 2006 from http://www.e-zgeometry.com/class/class2/2.3.4/ 2.3.4.htm

  • Enç, M. (1996). Tense and modality. In S. Lappin (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp. 345-358). Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Felkins, L. (2000). Paradoxes and dilemmas. Retrieved January 5, 2006 from http://perspicuity.net/ paradox/paradox.html

  • Groenendijk J., Stakhot M. (1975). Modality and conversational information. Theoretical linguistics. 2, 61–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kardes, F. R., Sanbanmatsu D. M. (2003). Omission neglect: The importance of missing information. Skeptical inquirer, March/April 2003. Retrieved January 5, 2006 from http:// www.findarticles.com/p/articles/2mi_m28433/is_2_27/ai_98252933

  • Kratzer A. (1977). What ”must” and ”can” must and can mean. Language and Philosophy. 1, 337– 355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (1981a). The notional category of modality. In H. Eikmeyer, H. Rieser (Eds.), Words, worlds, and contexts (pp. 38-74). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Kratzer A. (1981b). Partition and revision: The semantics of counterfactuals. Journal of Philo- sophical Logic. 10, 201–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In A. von Stechow, D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics: An interna- tional handbook of contemporary research (pp. 639-650). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Lightfoot D. (1979). Diachronic syntax. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogihara, T. (1989). Temporal reference in English and Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austria.

  • Ross, J. (1969). Auxiliaries as main verbs. In W. Todd (Ed.), Studies in philosophical linguistics, Series 1 (pp. 77-102).

  • Von Stechow, A. (1995). On the proper treatment of tense. In M. Simons, T. Galloway (Eds.), Proceedings from SALT 5 (pp. 362-386). Ithaca, N.Y.: CLC Publications.

  • Werner, T. (2003a). Deducing the future. In M. Kadowaki S. Kawahara (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (Vol. 33). Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.

  • Werner, T. (2003b). Deducing the future and distinguishing the past: Temporal interpretation in modal sentences in English, PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Schenley Park, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213-3890, USA

    Tom Werner

Authors
  1. Tom Werner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tom Werner.

Additional information

I would like to thank members of my dissertation committee, Veneeta Dayal and Mark Baker, for much assistance and discussion on issues in this paper. An anonymous reviewer for Natural Language Semantics has raised challenging points, and I thank Angelika Kratzer for very useful comments and examples. Mandy Simons has provided continuous support and encouragement. Most of all, my dissertation chair, Roger Schwarzschild, deserves thanks for all he has done in seeing this through. All shortcomings in the work are mine alone.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Werner, T. Future and non-future modal sentences. Nat Lang Semantics 14, 235–255 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-006-9001-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-006-9001-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation