Search results for 'Tense and modality (Linguistics' (try it on Scholar)

13 found
Order:
  1. Kit Fine (2005). Modality and Tense. Oxford University Press.
  2. Dov M. Gabbay (1979). Investigations in Modal and Tense Logics with Application to Problems in Philosophy and Linguistics. Journal of Symbolic Logic 44 (4):656-657.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   14 citations  
  3.  58
    Valentine Hacquard (2009). On the Interaction of Aspect and Modal Auxiliaries. Linguistics and Philosophy 32 (3):279-315.
    This paper discusses the interaction of aspect and modality, and focuses on the puzzling implicative effect that arises when perfective aspect appears on certain modals: perfective somehow seems to force the proposition expressed by the complement of the modal to hold in the actual world, and not merely in some possible world. I show that this puzzling behavior, originally discussed in Bhatt (1999, Covert modality in non-finite contexts) for the ability modal, extends to all modal auxiliaries with a (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  4. Dilip Ninan (2010). Semantics and the Objects of Assertion. Linguistics and Philosophy 33 (5):355-380.
    This paper is about the relationship between two questions: the question of what the objects of assertion are and the question of how best to theorise about ‘shifty’ phenomena like modality and tense. I argue that the relationship between these two questions is less direct than is often supposed. I then explore the consequences of this for a number of debates in the philosophy of language.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   13 citations  
  5.  23
    Kai von Fintel, How to Say Ought in Foreign: The Composition of Weak Necessity Modals.
    1 This paper has been presented at the workshop “Time and Modality: A Round Table on Tense, Mood, and Modality”, Paris, December 2005, at a CUNY linguistics colloquium in May 2006, and at the 6th Workshop on Formal Linguistics in Florian´opolis, Brazil, August 2006. We thank the audiences at those presentations, in particular Orin Percus, Tim Stowell, Marcel den Dikken, Anna Szabolcsi, Chris Warnasch, Roberta Pires de Oliveira, Renato Miguel Basso, and Ana M¨uller. We thank Noam Chomsky, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  6. Shalom Lappin (ed.) (1996). The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Blackwell Reference.
    1. Formal semantics in linguistics -- 2. Generalized quantifier theory -- 3. The interface between syntax and semantics -- 4. Anaphora, discourse, and modality -- 5. Focus, presupposition, and negation -- 6. Tense -- 7. Questions -- 8. Plurals -- 9. Computational semantics -- 10. Lexical semantics -- 11. Semantics and related domains.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  7.  35
    Lisa Matthewson (2006). Temporal Semantics in a Superficially Tenseless Language. Linguistics and Philosophy 29 (6):673 - 713.
    This paper contributes to the debate about ‘tenseless languages’ by defending a tensed analysis of a superficially tenseless language. The language investigated is St’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish). I argue that although St’át’imcets lacks overt tense morphology, every finite clause in the language possesses a phonologically covert tense morpheme; this tense morpheme restricts the reference time to being non-future. Future interpretations, as well as ‘past future’ would-readings, are obtained by the combination of covert tense with an operator analogous (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  8.  19
    William Frawley (1992). Linguistic Semantics. L. Erlbaum Associates.
    This volume is a comprehensive, up-to-date, and readable introduction to linguistic meaning. While partial to conceptual and typological approaches, the book also presents results from formal approaches. Throughout, the focus is on grammatical meaning -- the way languages delineate universal semantic space and encode it in grammatical form. Subjects covered by the author include: the domain of linguistic semantics and the basic tools, assumptions, and issues of semantic analysis; semantic properties of entities, events, and thematic roles; language and space; (...), aspect, and the internal structure and temporal ordering of events; modality, negation, and the epistemology of the speaker; and modification and attribution. In contrast to most current treatments of semantics, this book is accessible to the beginning student of semantics and linguistics and also useful to the advanced practitioner. A textbook and reference work in a single volume, it can be used in a number of disciplines: psychology, computer science, and anthropology as well as linguistics. (shrink)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  9.  20
    Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach (ed.) (2003). Semantics: Critical Concepts in Linguistics. Routledge.
    This set brings together the most important contributions to semantic theory ranging from Gottlob Frege's 1892 essay "On Sense and Reference" to recent cutting-edge scholarship from leading journals in the field. The collection is structured around three major themes: * Fundamental notions, the relations between semantics and grammar and the relations between meaning and cognition * The semantics of basic grammatical constructions and structures, such as the semantics of determiners, nouns, adjectives and related topics including quantifier scope and the definiteness/indefiniteness (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  5
    A. I͡U Aĭkhenvalʹd (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford University Press.
    In some languages every statement must contain a specification of the type of evidence on which it is based: for example, whether the speaker saw it, or heard it, or inferred it from indirect evidence, or learnt it from someone else. This grammatical reference to information source is called 'evidentiality', and is one of the least described grammatical categories. Evidentiality systems differ in how complex they are: some distinguish just two terms (eyewitness and noneyewitness, or reported and everything else), while (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  11.  18
    A. I͡U Aĭkhenvalʹd (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford University Press.
    In some languages every statement must contain a specification of the type of evidence on which it is based: for example, whether the speaker saw it, or heard it, or inferred it from indirect evidence, or learnt it from someone else. This grammatical reference to information source is called 'evidentiality', and is one of the least described grammatical categories. Evidentiality systems differ in how complex they are: some distinguish just two terms (eyewitness and noneyewitness, or reported and everything else), while (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  24
    Anne Mucha (2013). Temporal Interpretation in Hausa. Linguistics and Philosophy 36 (5):371-415.
    This paper provides a formal analysis of the grammatical encoding of temporal information in Hausa (Chadic, Afro-Asiatic), thereby contributing to the recent debate on temporality in languages without overt tense morphology. By testing the hypothesis of covert tense against recently obtained empirical data, the study yields the result that Hausa is tenseless and that temporal reference is pragmatically inferred from aspectual, modal and contextual information. The second part of the paper addresses the coding of future in particular. It (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13.  81
    Dilip Ninan (2005). Two Puzzles About Deontic Necessity. In J. Gajewski, V. Hacquard, B. Nickel & S. Yalcin (eds.), New Work on Modality, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
    The deontic modal must has two surprising properties: an assertion of must p does not permit a denial of p, and must does not take past tense complements. I first consider an explanation of these phenomena that stays within Angelika Kratzer’s semantic framework for modals, and then offer some reasons for rejecting that explanation. I then propose an alternative account, according to which simple must sentences have the force of an imperative.
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations