The feature TENSE and the Simple Present in Truth-Conditional Pragmatics Kasia Jaszczolt University of Cambridge http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~kmj21 IPrA panel Expressions of Time in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface, Riva del Garda, 15 July 2005

1
The feature TENSE and the Simple Present in
Truth-Conditional PragmaticsKasia Jaszczolt
University of Cambridgehttp//www.cus.cam.ac.uk/
kmj21IPrA panel Expressions of Time in the
Semantics/Pragmatics Interface, Riva del Garda,
15 July 2005
2

• Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle
  1993 Kamp, van Genabith Reyle forthcoming)

3

• Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle
  1993 Kamp, van Genabith Reyle forthcoming)
• Contextual input to representation structures
  (DRT and Default Semantics, Jaszczolt 2005)

4

• Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle
  1993 Kamp, van Genabith Reyle forthcoming)
• Contextual input to representation structures
  (DRT and Default Semantics, Jaszczolt 2005)
• Merger representations (Jaszczolt 2003, 2005)

5

• Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle
  1993 Kamp, van Genabith Reyle forthcoming)
• Contextual input to representation structures
  (DRT and Default Semantics, Jaszczolt 2005)
• Merger representations (Jaszczolt 2003, 2005)
• Merger representation for Simple Present
  expressing futurity

6

• Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle
  1993 Kamp, van Genabith Reyle forthcoming)
• Contextual input to representation structures
  (DRT and Default Semantics, Jaszczolt 2005)
• Merger representations (Jaszczolt 2003, 2005)
• Merger representation for Simple Present
  expressing futurity
• Conclusion truth-conditional semantics or
  pragmatics?

7

• Mary will go to the opera tomorrow night.
• Mary is going to the opera tomorrow night.
• Mary goes to the opera tomorrow night.
• Mary is going to go to the opera tomorrow night.

8

• The algorithm must represent the temporal
  information that is contained in the tense of a
  sentence and in its temporal adverb (if there is
  one).
• Kamp Reyle (1993 512)

9

• the feature TENSE has three possible
  values, past, present, and future, signifying
  that the described eventuality lies before, at,
  or after the utterance time, respectively. The
  value of TENSE for a given sentence S is
  determined by the tense of the verb of S. When
  the main verb is in the simple past, TENSE
  past when it is in the simple present, TENSE
  pres and when the verb complex contains the
  auxiliary will, TENSE fut.
• Kamp Reyle (1993 512-513)

10

• (5) Tom plays with the Cambridge Philharmonia.
• (6) Tom plays in the Royal Albert Hall tomorrow.

11

• bottom-up vs. top-down pragmatic enrichment
  (Stanley 2002 vs. Recanati 2002, 2004)
• Various uses to which Simple Present can be put
  in English are well handled by a contextualist
  (top-down) account.

12

• Default Semantics
• (Jaszczolt 2002 2003 2005, forthcoming)
• quasi-contextualism
• merger representations

13
(No Transcript)
14

• Pragmatic information, such as the output of CD,
  SCD 1 and CPI 1, contributes to the
  truth-conditional content of the utterance.
• The representation of the truth-conditional
  content is a merger of information from (i) word
  meaning and sentence structure, (ii) conscious
  pragmatic processes, and (iii) default meanings.
  Merger representation.

15

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

16

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

17
(No Transcript)
18

• (2) Mary is going to the opera tomorrow night.
  (futurative progressive)
• (3) Mary goes to the opera tomorrow night.
• (tenseless future, Dowty 1979)

19

• Grices (2001) Equivocality Thesis Modals
• are univocal across the practical/alethic
• divide.
• Acc modal operator, it is (rationally)
• acceptable that

20

• Acc ?p it is acceptable that it is the case
  that p
• Acc ! p it is acceptable that let it be that p

21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26

• Gradation of modality strength of informative
  intention

27
(No Transcript)
28
Conclusions

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

29
Conclusions

• The general notion of modality (Acc) subsumes
  various expressions of futurity (rf, fp, tf). It
  can be translated into the DS-theoretic operator
  ACC?n.
• ACC?n, combined with CD and CPI 1, allows for
  representing the degrees of modality and the
  degrees of informative intentions associated with
  the acts of communication that make use of these
  different forms.

30
Pragmatic composition view

• even if the semantic value of a word is fixed
  by language (and context, if saturation is
  necessary), composing it with the semantic values
  for other words often requires help from above
  top-down process, KJ. It is semantic
  composition which has a fundamentally pragmatic
  character.
• Recanati (2003139).

31

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

32

• Merger representations are compositional. They
  are mental representations that are
  coarse-grained equivalents of thoughts.
• Merger representations have truth conditions.

33

• Merger representations are compositional. They
  are mental representations that are
  coarse-grained equivalents of thoughts.
• Merger representations have truth conditions.
• Default Semantics applies the amended and
  extended DRT mechanism to merger representations
  (e.g. incorporation of the operator on
  eventualities ACC e)

34

• A disclaimer Interactive Default Semantics is
  not an alternative to DRT it uses its tools one
  level higher, to the analysis of acts of
  intentional communication. Compositionality is
  predicated of the representations of these acts.

35

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

36
Select references

• Van Eijck, J. H. Kamp. 1997. Representing
  discourse in context. In J. van Benthem and A.
  ter Meulen (eds). Handbook of Logic and Language.
  Amsterdam Elsevier Science. 179-237.
• Enç, M. 1996. Tense and modality. In S. Lappin,
  ed. The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory.
  Oxford Blackwell. 345-358.
• Grice, P. 2001. Aspects of Reason. Ed. By R.
  Warner. Oxford Clarendon Press.
• Groenendijk, J. M. Stokhof. 1991. Dynamic
  Predicate Logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14.
  39-100.
• Jaszczolt, K.M. 2002. Semantics and Pragmatics.
  London Longman.
• Jaszczolt, K.M. 2003. The modality of the
  future A Default-Semantics account. In P.
  Dekker R. van Rooy (eds). Proceedings of the
  14th Amsterdam Colloquium. ILLC, University of
  Amsterdam. 43-48.
• Jaszczolt, K.M. 2005. Default Semantics. Oxford
  Oxford University Press.
• Jaszczolt, K.M. forthcoming. Futurity in Default
  Semantics. In K. von Heusinger K. Turner
  (eds). Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics The
  Michigan State University Papers. Oxford
  Elsevier.
• Kamp, H. and U. Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to
  Logic. Dordrecht Kluwer.
• Kamp, H., J. van Genabith U. Reyle.
  forthcoming. Discourse Representation Theory.
  In D.M. Gabbay F. Guenthner (eds). Handbook of
  Philosophical Logic. Second edition.
• Recanati, F. 2002. Unarticulated constituents.
  Linguistics and Philosophy 25. 299-345.
• Recanati, F. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge
  CUP.