Skip to main content
Log in

Tense, Predicates, and Lifetime Effects

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, I explain in which way the temporal location of individuals is determined by the temporal interpretation of a clause. The most drastic effects show up in past tense individual-level clauses (section 1). I argue in section 2 that predicates provide lexically determined minimal requirements on their arguments' lifetimes. The role of tense for lifetime effects is an indirect one: by virtue of its determining the temporal interpretation of the main predicate of a clause, it triggers implicatures which cause lifetime effects. This proposal is refined in section 3 so as to be able to explain the blocking of lifetime effects in certain contexts. This blocking is due to the choice of topics and the choice of values for temporal restrictions. In section 4 I compare my proposal to a proposal of Kratzer (1989b) and argue that my account is more adequate. Kratzer's main claim, that the temporal location of individuals is sometimes directly determined by tense, runs into several problems which are avoided in my account.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Anderson, John: 1973, ‘The Ghost of Times Past’, Foundations of Language 9, 481–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bäuerle, Rainer: 1977, Tempus, Temporaladverb und die temporale Frage, Papiere des SFB 99 nos. 13 and 15, University of Konstanz.

  • Bäuerle, Rainer: 1979, Temporale Deixis, temporale Frage, Narr, Tübingen.

  • Binnick, Robert I.: 1991, Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curme, G. O.: 1931, Syntax, D.C. Heath, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Declerck, Renaat: 1991, Tense in English, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diesing, Molly: 1988, ‘Bare Plural Subjects and the Stage/Individual Contrast’, in M. Krifka (ed.), Genericity in Natural Language: Proceedings of the 1988 Tübingen Conference, pp. 107–154.

  • Diesing, Molly: 1992, Indefinites, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enç, Mürvet: 1981, Tense without Scope: An Analysis of Nouns as Indexicals, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin - Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel, Kai: 1994, Restrictions on Quantifier Domains, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. P.: 1975, ‘Logic and Conversation’, in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Academic Press, New York, pp. 41–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jespersen, Otto: 1931, A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, part 4: Syntax (vol. 3), Allen & Unwin, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, Wolfgang: 1994, Time in Language, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, Angelika: 1978, Semantik der Rede: Kontexttheorie - Modalwörter - Konditionalsätze, Scriptor, Königstein/Taunus.

  • Kratzer, Angelika: 1989a, ‘An Investigation of the Lumps of Thought’, Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 607–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, Angelika: 1989b, ‘Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates’, in E. Bach, A. Kratzer and B. Partee (eds.), Papers on Quantification, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [Also published in G. N. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1995, pp. 125- 175.]

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, Manfred, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Gregory N. Carlson, Alice ter Meulen, Gennaro Chierchia and Godehard Link: 1995, ‘Genericity: An Introduction’, in C. N. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 1–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, Stephen C.: 1983, Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musan, Renate: 1995, On the Temporal Interpretation of Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

  • Partee, Barbara H.: 1973, ‘Some Structural Analogies between Tenses and Pronouns in English’, Journal of Philosophy 70, 601–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perlmutter, David M. and Paul M. Postal: 1984, ‘The 1-Advancement Exclusiveness Law’, in D. Perlmutter and C. G. Rosen (eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 81–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, Arnim: 1992, Intensionale Semantik - eingeführt anhand der Temporalität, Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft, Arbeitspapier Nr. 40, Universität Konstanz.

  • Tichy, Pavel: 1985, ‘Do We Need Interval Semantics?’, Linguistics and Philosophy 8, 263–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlach, Frank: 1993, ‘Temporal Adverbials, Tenses, and the Perfect’, Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 231–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westerstå hl, Dag: 1984, ‘Determiners and Context Sets’, in J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (eds.), Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 45–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Edwin: 1981, ‘Argument Structure and Morphology’, The Linguistic Review 1, 81–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Musan, R. Tense, Predicates, and Lifetime Effects. Natural Language Semantics 5, 271–301 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008281017969

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008281017969

Keywords

Navigation