11

The feature The feature TENSETENSE and the Simple and the Simple Present in Truth-Conditional PragmaticsPresent in Truth-Conditional Pragmatics

Kasia Jaszczolt Kasia Jaszczolt University of CambridgeUniversity of Cambridge

http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~kmj21http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~kmj21

IPrA panel IPrA panel Expressions of Time in the Semantics/Pragmatics InterfaceExpressions of Time in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface , , Riva del Garda, 15 July 2005Riva del Garda, 15 July 2005

22

Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle 1993; Kamp, van Genabith & Reyle 1993; Kamp, van Genabith & Reyle forthcomingforthcoming))

33

Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle 1993; Kamp, van Genabith & Reyle 1993; Kamp, van Genabith & Reyle forthcomingforthcoming))

Contextual input to representation structures (DRT Contextual input to representation structures (DRT and Default Semantics, Jaszczolt 2005)and Default Semantics, Jaszczolt 2005)

44

Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle 1993; Kamp, van Genabith & Reyle 1993; Kamp, van Genabith & Reyle forthcomingforthcoming))

Contextual input to representation structures (DRT Contextual input to representation structures (DRT and Default Semantics, Jaszczolt 2005)and Default Semantics, Jaszczolt 2005)

Merger representations (Jaszczolt 2003, 2005)Merger representations (Jaszczolt 2003, 2005)

55

Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle 1993; Kamp, van Genabith & Reyle 1993; Kamp, van Genabith & Reyle forthcomingforthcoming))

Contextual input to representation structures (DRT Contextual input to representation structures (DRT and Default Semantics, Jaszczolt 2005)and Default Semantics, Jaszczolt 2005)

Merger representations (Jaszczolt 2003, 2005)Merger representations (Jaszczolt 2003, 2005)

Merger representation for Simple Present expressing Merger representation for Simple Present expressing futurityfuturity

66

Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle 1993; Kamp, Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle 1993; Kamp, van Genabith & Reyle van Genabith & Reyle forthcomingforthcoming))

Contextual input to representation structures (DRT and Contextual input to representation structures (DRT and Default Semantics, Jaszczolt 2005)Default Semantics, Jaszczolt 2005)

Merger representations (Jaszczolt 2003, 2005)Merger representations (Jaszczolt 2003, 2005)

Merger representation for Simple Present expressing futurityMerger representation for Simple Present expressing futurity

Conclusion: truth-conditional semantics or pragmatics?Conclusion: truth-conditional semantics or pragmatics?

77

(1)(1) Mary will go to the opera tomorrow night.Mary will go to the opera tomorrow night.

(2)(2) Mary is going to the opera tomorrow night.Mary is going to the opera tomorrow night.

(3)(3) Mary goes to the opera tomorrow night.Mary goes to the opera tomorrow night.

(4)(4) Mary is going to go to the opera tomorrow Mary is going to go to the opera tomorrow night.night.

88

‘‘The algorithm must represent the temporal The algorithm must represent the temporal information that is contained in the tense of a information that is contained in the tense of a sentence and in its temporal adverb (if there is one).’ sentence and in its temporal adverb (if there is one).’

Kamp & Reyle (1993: 512)Kamp & Reyle (1993: 512)

99

‘…‘…[the feature] TENSE has three possible values, [the feature] TENSE has three possible values, pastpast, , presentpresent, and , and futurefuture, signifying that the described , signifying that the described eventuality lies before, at, or after the utterance time, eventuality lies before, at, or after the utterance time, respectively. The value of TENSE for a given respectively. The value of TENSE for a given sentence S is determined by the tense of the verb of S. sentence S is determined by the tense of the verb of S. When the main verb is in the simple past, TENSE = When the main verb is in the simple past, TENSE = pastpast; when it is in the simple present, TENSE = ; when it is in the simple present, TENSE = prespres; ; and when the verb complex contains the auxiliary and when the verb complex contains the auxiliary willwill, TENSE = , TENSE = futfut.’.’

Kamp & Reyle (1993: 512-513)Kamp & Reyle (1993: 512-513)

1010

(5)(5) Tom plays with the Cambridge Philharmonia.Tom plays with the Cambridge Philharmonia.

(6)(6) Tom plays in the Royal Albert Hall tomorrow.Tom plays in the Royal Albert Hall tomorrow.

1111

‘‘bottom-up’ vs. ‘top-down’ pragmatic bottom-up’ vs. ‘top-down’ pragmatic enrichment (Stanley 2002 vs. Recanati 2002, enrichment (Stanley 2002 vs. Recanati 2002, 2004)2004)

Various uses to which Simple Present can be Various uses to which Simple Present can be put in English are well handled by a put in English are well handled by a contextualist (‘top-down’) account.contextualist (‘top-down’) account.

1212

Default SemanticsDefault Semantics

(Jaszczolt 2002; 2003; 2005, forthcoming)(Jaszczolt 2002; 2003; 2005, forthcoming)

quasi-contextualismquasi-contextualism

merger representationsmerger representations

Stage I

combination of word meaning

and sentence structure

conscious pragmatic inference1

social-cultural defaults1

cognitive defaults

Stage II

social-cultural defaults2

conscious pragmatic inference2

Fig. 1

compositional

merger representation

1414

Pragmatic information, such as the output of CD, Pragmatic information, such as the output of CD, SCD 1 and CPI 1, contributes to the truth-conditional SCD 1 and CPI 1, contributes to the truth-conditional content of the utterance.content of the utterance.

The representation of the truth-conditional content is The representation of the truth-conditional content is a merger of information from (i) word meaning and a merger of information from (i) word meaning and sentence structure, (ii) conscious pragmatic sentence structure, (ii) conscious pragmatic processes, and (iii) default meanings. processes, and (iii) default meanings. Merger Merger representation.representation.

1515

Default Semantics uses an adapted and Default Semantics uses an adapted and extended formalism of DRT but applies it to extended formalism of DRT but applies it to the output of the merger of these sources of the output of the merger of these sources of meaning.meaning.

1616

(1)(1) Mary will go to the opera tomorrow night.Mary will go to the opera tomorrow night.(regular future)(regular future)

n e t x

et n<t

tomorrow night (t) Mary (x)

e

go to the opera (x)

1818

(2)(2) Mary is going to the opera tomorrow Mary is going to the opera tomorrow night. night. (futurative progressive)(futurative progressive)

(3)(3) Mary goes to the opera tomorrow night. Mary goes to the opera tomorrow night.(‘tenseless future’, Dowty 1979)(‘tenseless future’, Dowty 1979)

1919

Grice’s (2001) Equivocality Thesis: ModalsGrice’s (2001) Equivocality Thesis: Modals

are univocal across the practical/alethicare univocal across the practical/alethic

divide. divide.

AccAcc – modal operator, ‘it is (rationally) – modal operator, ‘it is (rationally)

acceptable that’acceptable that’

2020

Acc Acc ￂￂ pp ‘it is acceptable that it is the case ‘it is acceptable that it is the case that that pp’’

Acc ! pAcc ! p ‘it is acceptable that let it be that ‘it is acceptable that let it be that pp’’

Stage I

combination of word meaning

and sentence structure

conscious pragmatic inference1

social-cultural defaults1

cognitive defaults

Stage II

social-cultural defaults2

conscious pragmatic inference2

Fig. 1

compositional

merger representation

generalized MR: rf, fp, tf

x t e [Mary]CD (x) tomorrow night (t) ACC

n e e: [x go to the opera]WS

regular future

x t e [Mary]CD (x) tomorrow night (t) [ACC

rf e]WS,CD e: [x go to the opera]WS

futurative progressive

x t e [Mary]CD (x) tomorrow night (t) [ACC

fp e]WS, CPI 1 e: [x go to the opera]WS

tenseless future

x t e [Mary]CD (x) tomorrow night (t) [ACC

tf e]WS, CPI 1

e: [x go to the opera]WS

Gradation of modality: strength of informative intention

tf fp rf

1 0

s〚Pt1,…,tn〛s'M iff s = s' and {〚t1〛M,s,…, 〚tn〛M,s} I(P)

So,

s〚ACCn e〛s'

M iff s= s' and

i. 〚e〛M,s I(ACCn)

ii. ACCn {[ACC

n]CD , [ACCn]CPI}

iii. = ├

2828

ConclusionsConclusions

The general notion of modality (Acc) The general notion of modality (Acc) subsumes various expressions of futurity (rf, subsumes various expressions of futurity (rf, fp, tf). It can be translated into the DS-fp, tf). It can be translated into the DS-theoretic operator ACCtheoretic operator ACCΔΔ

nn. .

2929

ConclusionsConclusions

The general notion of modality (Acc) The general notion of modality (Acc) subsumes various expressions of futurity (rf, subsumes various expressions of futurity (rf, fp, tf). It can be translated into the DS-fp, tf). It can be translated into the DS-theoretic operator ACCtheoretic operator ACCΔΔ

nn. .

ACCACCΔΔnn, combined with CD and CPI 1, allows , combined with CD and CPI 1, allows

for representing the degrees of modality and for representing the degrees of modality and the degrees of informative intentions the degrees of informative intentions associated with the acts of communication that associated with the acts of communication that make use of these different forms. make use of these different forms.

3030

Pragmatic composition view:Pragmatic composition view:

‘…‘…even if the semantic value of a word is fixed by even if the semantic value of a word is fixed by language (and context, if saturation is necessary), language (and context, if saturation is necessary), composing it with the semantic values for other composing it with the semantic values for other words often requires help from above words often requires help from above [top-down [top-down process, KJ]process, KJ]. It is semantic composition which has a . It is semantic composition which has a fundamentally pragmatic character.’ fundamentally pragmatic character.’

Recanati (2003:139).Recanati (2003:139).

3131

Merger representations are compositional. Merger representations are compositional. They are mental representations that are They are mental representations that are coarse-grained equivalents of thoughts. coarse-grained equivalents of thoughts.

3232

Merger representations are compositional. Merger representations are compositional. They are mental representations that are They are mental representations that are coarse-grained equivalents of thoughts. coarse-grained equivalents of thoughts.

Merger representations have truth conditions.Merger representations have truth conditions.

3333

Merger representations are compositional. They are Merger representations are compositional. They are mental representations that are coarse-grained mental representations that are coarse-grained equivalents of thoughts. equivalents of thoughts.

Merger representations have truth conditions. Merger representations have truth conditions.

Default Semantics applies the amended and extended Default Semantics applies the amended and extended DRT mechanism to merger representations (e.g. DRT mechanism to merger representations (e.g. incorporation of the operator on eventualities incorporation of the operator on eventualities ACC eACC e))

3434

A disclaimer:A disclaimer: Interactive Default Semantics is Interactive Default Semantics is notnot an alternative to DRT: it uses its tools ‘one an alternative to DRT: it uses its tools ‘one level higher’, to the analysis of acts of level higher’, to the analysis of acts of intentional communication. Compositionality intentional communication. Compositionality is predicated of the representations of these is predicated of the representations of these acts.acts.

3535

K.M. Jaszczolt, 2005, K.M. Jaszczolt, 2005, Default Semantics: Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of CommunicationCommunication, Oxford: Oxford University Press., Oxford: Oxford University Press.

3636

Select referencesSelect referencesVan Eijck, J. & H. Kamp. 1997. ‘Representing discourse in context’. In J. van Benthem and A. ter Van Eijck, J. & H. Kamp. 1997. ‘Representing discourse in context’. In J. van Benthem and A. ter

Meulen (eds). Meulen (eds). Handbook of Logic and LanguageHandbook of Logic and Language. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. 179-237.. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. 179-237.EnEnç, M. 1996. ‘Tense and modality’. In S. Lappin, ed. ç, M. 1996. ‘Tense and modality’. In S. Lappin, ed. The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic

TheoryTheory. Oxford: Blackwell. 345-358.. Oxford: Blackwell. 345-358.Grice, P. 2001. Grice, P. 2001. Aspects of ReasonAspects of Reason. Ed. By R. Warner. Oxford: Clarendon Press.. Ed. By R. Warner. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Groenendijk, J. & M. Stokhof. 1991. ‘Dynamic Predicate Logic’. Groenendijk, J. & M. Stokhof. 1991. ‘Dynamic Predicate Logic’. Linguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy 14. 14.

39-100.39-100.Jaszczolt, K.M. 2002. Jaszczolt, K.M. 2002. Semantics and PragmaticsSemantics and Pragmatics. London: Longman.. London: Longman.Jaszczolt, K.M. 2003. ‘The modality of the future: A Default-Semantics account’. In P. Dekker & Jaszczolt, K.M. 2003. ‘The modality of the future: A Default-Semantics account’. In P. Dekker &

R. van Rooy (eds). R. van Rooy (eds). Proceedings of the 14Proceedings of the 14thth Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam Colloquium. ILLC, University of ILLC, University of Amsterdam. 43-48.Amsterdam. 43-48.

Jaszczolt, K.M. 2005. Jaszczolt, K.M. 2005. Default SemanticsDefault Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Jaszczolt, K.M. Jaszczolt, K.M. forthcomingforthcoming. . ‘Futurity in Default Semantics’. In: K. von Heusinger & K. Turner ‘Futurity in Default Semantics’. In: K. von Heusinger & K. Turner

(eds). (eds). Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics: The Michigan State University PapersWhere Semantics Meets Pragmatics: The Michigan State University Papers . Oxford: . Oxford: Elsevier.Elsevier.

Kamp, H. and U. Reyle. 1993. Kamp, H. and U. Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to LogicFrom Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Kamp, H., J. van Genabith & U. Reyle. Kamp, H., J. van Genabith & U. Reyle. forthcomingforthcoming. ‘Discourse Representation Theory’. In: D.M. . ‘Discourse Representation Theory’. In: D.M.

Gabbay & F. Guenthner (eds). Gabbay & F. Guenthner (eds). Handbook of Philosophical LogicHandbook of Philosophical Logic. Second edition.. Second edition.Recanati, F. 2002. ‘Unarticulated constituents’. Recanati, F. 2002. ‘Unarticulated constituents’. Linguistics and PhilosophyLinguistics and Philosophy 25. 299-345. 25. 299-345.Recanati, F. 2004. Recanati, F. 2004. Literal MeaningLiteral Meaning. Cambridge: CUP.. Cambridge: CUP.