Abstract
Differences in the interpretation of would-conditionals with simple (perfective) and perfect antecedent clauses are marked enough to discourage a unified view. However, this paper presents a unified, Lewis–Stalnaker style semantics for the modal in such constructions. Differences in the interpretation of the conditionals are derived from the interaction between the interpretation of different types of aspect and the modal. The paper makes a distinction between perfective and perfect aspect in terms of whether they make reference to or quantify over Lewis-style events. In making reference to Lewis-events, perfective aspect is shown to be incompatible with counterfactual would-conditionals. The so-called ‘epistemic flavor’ of perfective conditionals about the future is derived from the use of diagonalization as an interpretive strategy called upon to resolve reference.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abusch D. (1988). Sequence of tense, intensionality, and scope. In: Borer H. (eds). Proceedings of WCCFL 7. Stanford, Stanford Linguistic Association, pp. 1-14
Abusch, D. (1996). The ‘now’ parameter in future contexts. Ms., IMS Stuttgart.
Abusch D. (1997). Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 1–50
Anderson A.R. (1951). A note on subjunctive and counterfactual conditionals. Analysis, 12, 35–38
Arregui, A. (2004). On the accessibility of possible worlds: The role of tense and aspect. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Arregui, A. (2005). Layering modality. Ms, University of Ottawa.
Arregui A. (2006). On the consequences of event quantification in counterfactual conditionals. In: Baumer D., Montero D., Scanlon M. (eds). Proceedings of WCCFL 25. Somerville MA, Cascadilla Press, pp. 67–75
Bennett J. (1984). Counterfactuals and temporal direction. The Philosophical Review, 93, 7–89
Bennett J. (2003). A philosophical guide to conditionals. Oxford, Clarendon
Bennett J., Partee B.H. (1978). Towards the logic of tense and aspect in English. Bloomington, Indiana University Linguistics Club
Bhatt, R., & Pancheva, R. (2001). Conditionals. Ms, University of Texas at Austin and University of Southern California.
Borg E. (2002). Pointing at Jack, talking about Jill: Understanding deferred uses of demonstrative pronouns. Mind and Language, 17, 489–512
Comrie B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Condoravdi C. (2001). Temporal interpretation of modals. In: Beaver D. et al. (eds). Stanford papers in semantics. Stanford, CSLI Publications, pp. 59–88
Crouch, R. (1993). The temporal properties of English conditionals and modals. PhD dissertation, Cambridge University.
Dretske F. (1972). Contrastive statements. The Philosophical Review, 81, 411–437
Dudman V.H. (1983). Tense and time in English verb clusters of the primary pattern. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 3, 25–44
Dudman V.H. (1984). Conditional interpretations of if-sentences. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 4, 143–204
Enç M. (1996). Tense and modality. In: Lappin S. (eds). The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. London, Blackwell, pp. 345–358
von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
von Fintel K. (1997). The presupposition of subjunctive conditionals. In: Sauerland U., Percus O. (eds). The interpretive tract, MITWPL 25. Cambridge MA, MIT, pp. 29–44
Fowler H.W. (1965). Fowler’s modern English usage. Oxford, Oxford University Press
Gennari S. (2003). Tense meanings and temporal interpretation. Journal of Semantics, 20, 35–71
Giorgi A., Pianesi F. (1997). Tense and aspect: From semantics to morphosyntax. Oxford, Oxford University Press
Heim I. (1994). Comments on Abusch’s theory of tense. In: Kamp H. (eds). Ellipsis, tense and questions. University of Amsterdam, pp. 141–170
Heim, I. (2005). Features on bound pronouns. Ms., MIT.
Huddleston R., Pullum G. (Eds) (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Iatridou, S. (1991). Topics in conditionals. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Iatridou S. (2000). The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 231–270
Iatridou S. (2003). A little bit more on the English perfect. In: Alexiadou A. et al. (eds). Perfect explorations. The Hague, de Gruyter, pp. 133–151
Iatridou, S., Anagnostopoulou, E., & Pancheva, R. (2001). Observations about the form and meaning of the perfect. Reprinted in A. Alexiadou et al. (Eds.), (2003), Perfect explorations (pp. 153–204). The Hague: de Gruyter.
Ippolito M. (2003). Presuppositions and implicatures in counterfactuals. Natural Language Semantics, 11, 145–186
Izvorski R. (1997). The present perfect as an epistemic modal. In: Lawson A. (eds). Proceedings of SALT 7. Cornell University, CLC Publications, pp. 222–239
Kamp H., Reyle U. (1995). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers
Kaplan D. (1989). Demonstratives. In: Almog J. et al. (eds). Themes from Kaplan. New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 481–563
Katz, G. (1995). Stativity, genericity, and temporal reference. PhD dissertation, University of Rochester.
Katz G. (2000). Anti neo-Davidsonianism: Against a Davidsonian semantics for state sentences. In: Tenny C. et al. (eds). Events as grammatical objects. Stanford, CSLI Publications, pp. 343–416
Katz G. (2003). On the stativity of the English perfect. In: Alexiadou A. et al. (eds). Perfect explorations. The Hague, de Gruyter, pp. 205–233
Kaufmann S. (2005). Conditional truth and future reference. Journal of Semantics, 22, 231–280
Klein W. (1994). Time in Language. London, Routledge
Kratzer A. (1979). Conditional necessity and possibility. In: Bäuerle R. et al. (eds). Semantics from different points of view. Berlin, Springer, pp. 117–147
Kratzer A. (1998). More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In: Strolovitch D., Lawson A. (eds). Proceedings of SALT 8. Ithaca NY, CLC Publications, pp. 92–109
Kratzer, A. (2006). Minimal pronouns. Ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Kusumoto, K. (1998). Tense in embedded contexts. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Kusumoto K. (2005). On the quantification over times in natural language. Natural Language Semantics, 13, 317–357
Lewis D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Basil Blackwell, Oxford
Lewis D. (1975). Adverbs of quantification. In: Keenan E.L. (eds). Formal semantics of natural language. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–15
Lewis, D. (1979). Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow. Noûs, 13, 455--476. Reprinted in D. Lewis (1986), Philosophical papers (Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis D. (1986). Events. In Philosophical papers (Vol. 2). Oxford, Oxford University Press
McArthur T. (eds). (1992). The Oxford companion to the English language. Oxford, Oxford University Press
McCoard R. (1978). The English perfect: Tense choice and pragmatic inferences. Amsterdam, North Holland
Ogihara T. (1996). Tense, attitudes, and scope. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
I would like to thank Phil Bricker, Barbara Partee, and especially Angelika Kratzer for their thoughtful comments on earlier stages of this work. I would also like to thank audiences of the Linguistics Colloquium at the University of British Columbia and WCCFL 25 at the University of Washington, in particular Lisa Matthewson and Toshiyuki Ogihara, for helpful discussions. Finally, two anonymous reviewers gave me detailed feedback, which is gratefully acknowledged. All remaining mistakes are my own.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Arregui, A. When aspect matters: the case of would-conditionals. Nat Lang Semantics 15, 221–264 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9019-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9019-6