Hide metadata

dc.date.accessioned2020-06-11T08:37:07Z
dc.date.available2020-06-11T08:37:07Z
dc.date.created2017-01-20T19:47:30Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citationGrønn, Atle von Stechow, Arnim . Tense. The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics. 2016, 313-341 Cambridge University Press
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10852/76877
dc.description.abstractOur focus in this chapter is the semantics of tense, one of the main devices for encoding time in language. The grammatical category of tense is used to locate a situation or event in time, typically in interaction with aspect. When tense relates the speaker's temporal focus, what is normally called the reference time, to the speech time, we have deictic or absolute tense. Aspect, on the other hand, is concerned with the internal temporal structure of the event, for example, whether the event time is included or not in the reference time. Tense is typically marked by verbal morphology, normally an affix on the matrix verb or on an auxiliary verb, but the semantic tense operator is not interpreted at the verb. The operator can be located quite distant from the verb at the level of logical form. Thus, we must distinguish between tense semantics and tense morphology. We will assume that ourmodel contains a set of times I, and, furthermore, that verbs have a temporal argument of the semantic type i (time intervals). The latter assumption will be revised when we include aspect in the analysis. Times are partially ordered by the relations ≺ ‘before’ and ≻ ‘after’. Time intervals are coherent sets of time points. Hence, they may overlap, stand in the inclusion relation and so on (von Stechow, 2009b). While everybody agrees that themeaning of past and future tenses is relational – with past placing the reference time before now and future after now – there is a long-standing issue in the literature as to the exact status of the reference time: is it quantificational or referential? We argue that this question cannot be answered straightforwardly. In our view, tenses, such as the simple past in English, are ambiguous between an indefinite (quantificational) and a definite (referential) interpretation of the reference time. We will suggest that the data invite a dynamic account, according to which indefinite terms are analysed as introducing a new discourse marker (dm), whereas definite terms are considered to be anaphoric to an old dm and are in fact entirely presupposed.
dc.languageEN
dc.publisherCambridge University Press
dc.titleTense
dc.typeChapter
dc.creator.authorGrønn, Atle
dc.creator.authorvon Stechow, Arnim
cristin.unitcode185,14,34,0
cristin.unitnameInstitutt for litteratur, områdestudier og europeiske språk
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextpostprint
dc.identifier.cristin1434463
dc.identifier.bibliographiccitationinfo:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.btitle=The Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics&rft.spage=313&rft.date=2016
dc.identifier.startpage313
dc.identifier.endpage341
dc.identifier.pagecount600
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139236157.012
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:no-79976
dc.type.documentBokkapittel
dc.type.peerreviewedPeer reviewed
dc.source.isbn9781107028395
dc.identifier.fulltextFulltext https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/76877/1/gronn-vonstechow.proof.pdf
dc.type.versionAcceptedVersion
cristin.btitleThe Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics


Files in this item

Appears in the following Collection

Hide metadata