David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Linguistics and Philosophy 26 (4):459-510 (2003)
The English perfect involves two fundamental components of meaning: a truth-conditional one involving temporal notions and a current relevance presupposition best expressed in terms drawn from the analysis of modality. The proposal made here draws much for the Extended Now theory (McCoard 1978 and others), but improves on it by showing that many aspects of the perfect's meaning may be factored out into independent semantic or pragmatic principles.
|Keywords||Linguistics Philosophy of Language Artificial Intelligence Computational Linguistics Semantics Syntax|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
W. P. M. Meyer-Viol & H. S. Jones (2011). Reference Time and the English Past Tenses. Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (3):223-256.
Gerhard Schaden (2009). Present Perfects Compete. Linguistics and Philosophy 32 (2):115-141.
Similar books and articles
Robyn Carston (2008). Linguistic Communication and the Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Synthese 165 (3):321 - 345.
Myriam Bras & Laure Vieu (eds.) (2001). Semantic and Pragmatic Issues in Discourse and Dialogue: Experimenting with Current Dynamic Theories. Elsevier.
Valentin Goranko (1996). Hierarchies of Modal and Temporal Logics with Reference Pointers. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 5 (1):1-24.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads39 ( #50,401 of 1,410,228 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #155,456 of 1,410,228 )
How can I increase my downloads?