Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sequence of Tense: Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Pronouns in Embedded Contexts at the Syntax-Semantics Interface

Part of the book series: Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy ((SLAP,volume 99))

Abstract

A theory of embedded tense that derives SOT (Sequence of Tense) effects from an SOT rule is compared with a theory that derives SOT effects without appealing to an SOT rule, and an argument is provided in favor of the former. The argument relies mostly on examples where a tense is embedded under future-in-the-past. Such an argument was originally presented in (Abusch D, Linguist Philos 20:1–50, 1997) and later dismissed in (Altshuler D, Schwarzschild R, Moments of change, cessation implicatures and simultaneous readings. In: Chemla E, Homer V, Winterstein G (eds) Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17, ENS-Paris, 45–62, 2013a). An additional argument is provided in favor of supplementing the SOT rule with a ‘de re’ mechanism (as also argued for in Abusch D, Linguist Philos 20:1–50, 1997).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    In addition, on the assumption that pronominal tenses can be bound by a default existential operator (cf. Ogihara 1989), the difference between the two approaches is not so significant anyway.

  2. 2.

    We also assume the rules Functional Application and Predicate Modification (as in Heim and Kratzer 1998), and:

    1. (a)

      if α is a pronoun or a trace and i an index: [[α i]]c is defined only if i ∈ Dom(gc); when defined, [[α i]]c = gc(i).

    2. (b)

      [[i α]]c = [λz: [[α]]c[i ➔ z] is defined. [[α]]c[i ➔ z]], where c[i ➔ z] is exactly like c except for the possible difference that gc[i ➔ z](i) = z.

    An index i is a pair <n, σ>, where n is a number and σ a semantic type. We often omit σ to keep the LFs simple.

  3. 3.

    See also Heim (1994), Ogihara (1996), von Stechow (1995), Kratzer (1998), Schlenker (1999), Ogihara and Sharvit (2012) and others.

  4. 4.

    This incorrectly predicts that John said that Mary was self-employed cannot be used when John mistakenly located himself at a time that is after Tc and said: “Mary is self-employed now, and was never self-employed before now”.

  5. 5.

    The meaning of say in (6) is adjusted as follows:

    For any p such that p is a function from time-concept generators to functions from world-time pairs to truth values, individual x, time t and world w: [[say%]]c(t)(w)(p)(x) is defined iff acc(x, w, t) ≠ ø and there is a time-concept generator G suitable for x in w at t such that for all <w’, t’> ∈ acc(x, w, t), p(G)(t’)(w’) is defined; if defined, [[say%]]c(t)(w)(p)(x) = True iff there is a G ∈ {G*| G* is a time-concept generator suitable for x in w at t and for all <w’, t’> ∈ acc(x, w, t), p(G*)(t’)(w’) is defined} such that p(G)(t’)(w’) = True.

  6. 6.

    Abusch (1997) contemplates the possibility that the ULC follows from independent principles. In Sect. 5 we mention some attempts (Ogihara 1989, 1996; Bar-Lev 2015; Klecha 2016) to achieve precisely that.

  7. 7.

    [PAST/PRES-t0 [3 [John say-t3-w0 [5 6 [PAST/PRES-t0 [3 [Mary be-t3-w5 self-employed]]]]]]], where ‘6’ does not bind anything, is ruled out by whatever principle rules out (8).

  8. 8.

    Altshuler (2016) discusses some further implications of the scalar theory that are not addressed here. It is also worth noting that the proposal in Gennari 2003, like the scalar theory, does not acknowledge an SOT LF, but unlike the scalar theory it recognizes null and back-shifted readings as two semantically distinct readings.

  9. 9.

    This is modified from Altshuler and Schwarzschild 2013a. See Altshuler 2016 for discussion of the progressive and the temporal profile of statives.

  10. 10.

    A concern regarding the scalar theory arises with respect to vacuous exhaustification of ¬α. Cessation is not guaranteed in negated past-under-present sentences (e.g., John isn’t saying that Mary was self-employed) and in embedded polar questions (e.g., John is asking whether Mary was self-employed). However, since negation also poses some non-trivial problems for ‘de re’ LFs (as discussed in Charlow and Sharvit 2014 and others), we refrain from comparing SOT+‘de re’ with the scalar theory on the basis of their predictions regarding negation.

  11. 11.

    I thank Moysh Bar-lev and Idan Landau for sharing with me their native speaker judgments regarding (36), (37) and (39).

  12. 12.

    I thank Nikos Angelopoulos, Cleo Condoravdi, Anastasia Giannakidou, Sabine Iatridou, Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg, Eleni Miltsakaki and Orest Xherija for sharing with me their native speaker judgments regarding (40).

  13. 13.

    The modal tha in (40) does not have a null reading when accompanied by present tense, but this is probably due to the way it interacts with aspect (see Iatridou 2000). Regardless, the embedded verb corresponding to meet is good with either past or present (on the “null” reading).

  14. 14.

    The Greek counterpart of (37) has a null reading too, as expected on the assumption that Greek has an SOT rule. The Japanese counterpart of (37) does not have a null reading at all; this is unexpected on the assumption that it lacks an SOT rule but has a ‘de re’ LF. See Ogihara and Sharvit (2012) for a possible explanation.

  15. 15.

    We use Krifka’s theory of before because it is advocated in Altshuler and Schwarzschild 2013a, but our point is the same within other theories of before (e.g., Condoravdi 2010). The decision to switch to pronominal tenses is dictated by Krifka’s before, which introduces an existential quantifier that binds tenses. In addition, we treat the present as fully “relative” for simplicity, but our point remains the same if we make it partly “absolute” as in Altshuler and Schwarzschild 2013b (cf. (27)).

  16. 16.

    The waitress at the Los Angeles bar where parts of this paper were written once asked me: “Did you want anything from the happy hour menu before it ended?”. While it is not entirely clear why do is in-the-past, the fact that end is in-the-past is expected, on the assumption that want, like say, triggers SOT.

  17. 17.

    Admittedly, this sentence requires speakers to be receptive to such a reading to begin with; as we saw in Sect. 4.1, in connection with past-under-present sentences, many speakers are not.

References

  • Abusch, D. (1994). Sequence of tense revisited: two semantic accounts of tense in intensional contexts. In H. Kamp (Ed.), Ellipsis, Tense and Questions, Dyana 2 Deliverable, 87–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abusch, D. (1997). Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 1–50. doi:10.1023/A:1005331423820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altshuler, D. (2016). Events, states and times. Warsaw: De Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Altshuler, D., & Schwarzschild, R. (2013a). Moments of change, cessation implicatures and simultaneous readings. In E. Chemla, V. Homer, & G. Winterstein (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17 (pp. 45–62). ENS-Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altshuler, D., & Schwarzschild, R. (2013b). Correlating cessation with double access. In M. Aloni, M. Franke, & F. Roelofsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 43–50).

    Google Scholar 

  • Anscombe, G. E. (1964). Before and after. The Philosophical Review, 73, 3–24. doi:10.2307/2183199.

  • Bar-Lev, M. E. (2015). De-re tenses and trace conversion. In Proceedings of SALT 25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bary, C., & Altshuler, D. (2014). Double access. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlow, S., & Sharvit, Y. (2014). Bound ‘de re’ pronouns and the LFs of attitude reports. Semantics and Pragmatics 7, Article 3, 1–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.14

  • Condoravdi, C. (2010). NPI licensing in temporal clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 28, 877–910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, M., & von Stechow, A. (1982). ‘De re’ belief generalized. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5, 503–535. doi:10.1007/BF00355585.

  • Dowty, D. (1977). Towards a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English imperfective progressive. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 45–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudman, V. H. (1983). Tense and time in English verb clusters of the primary pattern. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 3, 25–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudman, V. H. (1984). Conditional interpretation of if-sentences. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 4, 143–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enç, M. (1987). Anchoring conditions for tense. Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 633–657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, D. (2002). Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 33(1), 63–96. doi:10.1162/002438902317382189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, D. (2007). Free choice disjunction and the theory of scalar implicatures. In U. Sauerland & P. Stateva (Eds.), Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics (pp. 71–120). New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gennari, S. (2003). Tense meaning and temporal interpretation. Journal of Semantics, 20, 35–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grønn, A., & von Stechow, A. (2010). Complement tense in contrast: The SOT parameter in Russian and English. In A. Grønn, and I. Marijanovic (Eds.), Russian in Contrast. Oslo Studies in Language 2(1), 245–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grønn, A., & von Stechow, A. (2011). Future vs. Present in Russian and English adjunct clauses. Scando-Slavica, 57(2), 109–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatav, G. (2012). Bound tenses. In R. Binnick (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect (pp. 638–668). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. (1994). Comments on Abusch’s theory of tense. In H. Kamp (Ed.), Ellipsis, tense and questions, DYANA deliverable R2.2.B (pp. 143–170). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iatridou, S. (2000). The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Journal of Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 231–270. doi:10.1162/002438900554352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ippolito, M. (2003). Presuppositions and implicatures in counterfactuals. Natural Language Semantics, 11, 145–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jespersen, O. (1931). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part IV, Syntax, third volume, Time and Tense. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitatsbuchhandlung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H., & Rohrer, C. (1983). Tense in texts. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language (pp. 250–269). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, D. (1968). Quantifying in. Synthese, 19(1), 178–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, D. (1977). Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics and epistemology of demonstratives. Published in J. Almog, J. Perry, and H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan, 1989 (pp. 481–614). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klecha, P. (2016). Modality and embedded temporal operators. Semantics and Pragmatics, 9, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, W. (1994). Time in language. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (1986). Conditionals. Chicago Linguistics Society, 22(2), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. (1998). More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In Proceedings of SALT, VIII. CLC Publications, Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, M. (2010). Before and after without coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 28, 911–929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubota, Y., Lee, J., Smirnova, A., and Tonhauser, J. (2011). Cross-linguistic variation in temporal adjunct clauses. In Cahier Chronos: Selected Proceedings of Chronos 8. Rodopi, Amsterdam/Atlanta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1979). Attitudes de dicto and de se. The Philosophical Review, 88, 513–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musan, R. (1997). Tense, predicates, and lifetime effects. Natural Language Semantics, 5(3), 271–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogihara, T. (1989). Temporal reference in English and Japanese. University of Texas at Austin PhD dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogihara, T. (1996). Tense, attitudes and scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ogihara, T., & Sharvit, Y. (2012). Embedded tenses. In R. Binnick (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect (pp. 638–668). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. (1973). Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy, 70(18), 601–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Percus, O., & Sauerland, U. (2003). On the LFs of attitude reports. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 7 (pp. 228–242).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior, A. (1967). Past, present and future. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, P. (1999). Propositional attitudes and indexicality. PhD dissertation, MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharvit, Y. (2003). Embedded tense and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 34, 669–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharvit, Y. (2008). The puzzle of free indirect discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31, 353–395 doi:10.1007/s10988-008-9039-9.

  • Sharvit, Y. (2014). On the universal principles of tense embedding: The lesson from before. Journal of Semantics, 31, 263–313. doi:10.1093/jos/ffs024

  • Smith, C. (1978). The syntax and interpretation of temporal expressions in English. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2, 43–99. doi:10.1007/BF00365130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel, K. (1994). Restrictions on quantifier domains. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, A. (1995). On the proper treatment of tense. In Proceedings of SALT 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, A. (2003). Feature deletion under semantic binding: Tense, person, and mood under verbal quantifiers. Text of the NELS33 talk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stowell, T. (2007). The syntactic expression of tense. Lingua, 117, 437–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Maayan Abenina-Adar for his help with this research. For their comments, questions, suggestions, criticisms and native speaker judgments, I thank Dorit Abusch, Daniel Altshuler, Sam Alxatib, Nikos Angelopoulos, Moysh Bar-Lev, Cleo Condoravdi, Regine Eckardt, Ilaria Frana, Anastasia Giannakidou, John Gluckman, Tom Grano, Sabine Iatridou, Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg, Peet Klecha, Idan Landau, John MacFarlane, Louise McNally, Paula Menéndez-Benito, Line Mikkelsen, Eleni Miltsakaki, Keir Moulton, Maura O’Leary, Hazel Pearson, Orin Percus, Jessica Rett, Maribel Romero, Philippe Schlenker, Roger Schwarzschild, Richard Stockwell, Tim Stowell, Yasu Sudo, Jos Tellings, Orest Xherija, Kaeli Ward, Lauren Winans and Seth Yalcin. All errors are mine.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Yael Sharvit

Authors
  1. Yael Sharvit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yael Sharvit .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Pritty Patel-Grosz

  2. Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Patrick Georg Grosz

  3. Department of German Studies, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

    Sarah Zobel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sharvit, Y. (2018). Sequence of Tense: Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics. In: Patel-Grosz, P., Grosz, P., Zobel, S. (eds) Pronouns in Embedded Contexts at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 99. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56706-8_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56706-8_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-56704-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-56706-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation