1 Future time reference: Truth-conditional pragmatics or semantics of acts of communication? Kasia Jaszczolt University of Cambridge kmj21.

11

Future time reference: Future time reference:

Truth-conditional pragmaticsTruth-conditional pragmaticsor semantics of acts of communication?or semantics of acts of communication?

Kasia Jaszczolt Kasia Jaszczolt University of CambridgeUniversity of Cambridge

http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~kmj21http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~kmj21

22

Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle 1993)1993)

33

Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle 1993)Reyle 1993)

Reanalysis of the type and degree of Reanalysis of the type and degree of contextual input to representation structurescontextual input to representation structures

44

Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle 1993)Reyle 1993)

Reanalysis of the type and degree of Reanalysis of the type and degree of contextual input to representation structurescontextual input to representation structures

Representations of acts of communication: Representations of acts of communication: merger representations (Jaszczolt 2003 & merger representations (Jaszczolt 2003 & forthcoming)forthcoming)

55

Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle 1993)Reyle 1993)

Reanalysis of the type and degree of Reanalysis of the type and degree of contextual input to representation structurescontextual input to representation structures

Representations of acts of communication: Representations of acts of communication: merger representations (Jaszczolt 2003 & merger representations (Jaszczolt 2003 & forthcoming)forthcoming)

Application of merger representations to Application of merger representations to expressions of futurityexpressions of futurity

66

Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle 1993)Reyle 1993)

Reanalysis of the type and degree of Reanalysis of the type and degree of contextual input to representation structurescontextual input to representation structures

Representations of acts of communication: Representations of acts of communication: merger representations (Jaszczolt 2003 & merger representations (Jaszczolt 2003 & forthcoming)forthcoming)

Application of merger representations to Application of merger representations to expressions of futurityexpressions of futurity

Conclusion: truth-conditional semantics or Conclusion: truth-conditional semantics or pragmatics?pragmatics?

77

(1)(1) Tom will play a concert at the Royal Albert Tom will play a concert at the Royal Albert Hall on Friday.Hall on Friday.

(2)(2) Tom is going to play a concert at the Royal Tom is going to play a concert at the Royal Albert Hall on Friday.Albert Hall on Friday.

(3)(3) On Friday Tom is playing a concert at the On Friday Tom is playing a concert at the Royal Albert Hall.Royal Albert Hall.

(4)(4) On Friday Tom plays a concert at the Royal On Friday Tom plays a concert at the Royal Albert Hall.Albert Hall.

88

‘ ‘The algorithm must represent the temporal The algorithm must represent the temporal information that is contained in the tense of a information that is contained in the tense of a sentence and in its temporal adverb (if there is sentence and in its temporal adverb (if there is one).’ one).’

Kamp & Reyle (1993: 512)Kamp & Reyle (1993: 512)

99

‘… ‘…[the feature] TENSE has three possible [the feature] TENSE has three possible values, values, pastpast, , presentpresent, and , and futurefuture, signifying that , signifying that the described eventuality lies before, at, or the described eventuality lies before, at, or after the utterance time, respectively. The after the utterance time, respectively. The value of TENSE for a given sentence S is value of TENSE for a given sentence S is determined by the tense of the verb of S. When determined by the tense of the verb of S. When the main verb is in the simple past, TENSE = the main verb is in the simple past, TENSE = pastpast; when it is in the simple present, TENSE = ; when it is in the simple present, TENSE = prespres; and when the verb complex contains the ; and when the verb complex contains the auxiliary auxiliary willwill, TENSE = , TENSE = futfut.’.’

Kamp & Reyle (1993: 512-Kamp & Reyle (1993: 512-513)513)

1010

Truth-conditional pragmatics (e.g. Recanati Truth-conditional pragmatics (e.g. Recanati 2003): truth value is predicated of an utterance 2003): truth value is predicated of an utterance – – what is saidwhat is said by the speaker. by the speaker.

Problem: Problem: degreedegree of the contextual contribution of the contextual contribution ((quasi-contextualismquasi-contextualism and and contextualismcontextualism))

1111

Default SemanticsDefault Semantics(Jaszczolt 1999a, b; 2002; 2003; forthcoming a, b)(Jaszczolt 1999a, b; 2002; 2003; forthcoming a, b)

quasi-contextualismquasi-contextualism merger representationsmerger representations

12

Stage I

combination of word meaning

and sentence structure

conscious pragmatic inference1

social-cultural defaults1

cognitive defaults

Stage II

social-cultural defaults2

conscious pragmatic inference2

Fig. 1

compositional

merger representation

1313

Pragmatic information, such as the output of Pragmatic information, such as the output of pragmatic inference or defaults, contributes to pragmatic inference or defaults, contributes to the truth-conditional content.the truth-conditional content.

The representation of the truth-conditional The representation of the truth-conditional content is a merger of information from (i) word content is a merger of information from (i) word meaning and sentence structure, (ii) conscious meaning and sentence structure, (ii) conscious pragmatic processes, and (iii) default pragmatic processes, and (iii) default meanings. meanings. Merger representation.Merger representation.

1414

Default Semantics uses an adapted and Default Semantics uses an adapted and extended formalism of DRT but applies it extended formalism of DRT but applies it to the output of the merger of these to the output of the merger of these sources of meaning.sources of meaning.

1515

(5)(5) Mary will go to the opera tomorrow Mary will go to the opera tomorrow night.night. (regular future)(regular future)

16

n e t x

et n<t

tomorrow night (t) Mary (x)

e

go to the opera (x)

1717

(6) Mary is going to the opera tomorrow (6) Mary is going to the opera tomorrow night. night. (futurative progressive)(futurative progressive)

(7) Mary goes to the opera tomorrow night.(7) Mary goes to the opera tomorrow night.( ‘tenseless future’, Dowty 1979)( ‘tenseless future’, Dowty 1979)

1818

Grice’s (2001) Equivocality Thesis: ModalsGrice’s (2001) Equivocality Thesis: Modals

are univocal across the practical/alethicare univocal across the practical/alethic

divide. divide.

AccAcc – modal operator, ‘it is (rationally) – modal operator, ‘it is (rationally)

acceptable that’acceptable that’

1919

Acc Acc ￂￂ pp ‘it is acceptable that it is ‘it is acceptable that it is the case the case that that pp’’

Acc ! pAcc ! p ‘it is acceptable that let it ‘it is acceptable that let it be that be that pp’’

20

Stage I

combination of word meaning

and sentence structure

conscious pragmatic inference1

social-cultural defaults1

cognitive defaults

Stage II

social-cultural defaults2

conscious pragmatic inference2

Fig. 1

compositional

merger representation

21

generalized MR: rf, fp, tf

x t e [Mary]CD (x) tomorrow night (t) ACC

n e e: [x go to the opera]WS

22

s〚Pt1,…,tn〛s'M iff s = s' and {〚t1〛M,s,…, 〚tn〛M,s} I(P)

So,

s〚ACCn e〛s'

M iff s= s' and

i. 〚e〛M,s I(ACCn)

ii. ACCn {[ACC

n]CD , [ACCn]CPI}

iii. = ├

23

regular future

x t e [Mary]CD (x) tomorrow night (t) [ACC

rf e]WS,CD e: [x go to the opera]WS

24

futurative progressive

x t e [Mary]CD (x) tomorrow night (t) [ACC

fp e]WS, CPI 1 e: [x go to the opera]WS

25

tenseless future

x t e [Mary]CD (x) tomorrow night (t) [ACC

tf e]WS, CPI 1

e: [x go to the opera]WS

26

Gradation of modality: strength of informative intention

tf fp rf

1 0

2727

Other modal uses of Other modal uses of willwill::

(7)(7) Mary will be in the opera now. Mary will be in the opera now. (epistemic necessity)(epistemic necessity)

(8)(8) Mary will sometimes go to the opera Mary will sometimes go to the opera in her tracksuit. in her tracksuit.

(dispositional necessity)(dispositional necessity)

28

epistemic necessity will

x t s [Mary]CD (x) now (t) [ACCΔ

rf s]WS, CPI 1

s: [x be in the opera]WS

29

dispositional necessity will

x t e [Mary]CD (x) sometimes (t) [ACCΔ

rf e]WS, CPI 1

e: [x go to the opera in x’s tracksuit ]WS

30

s〚Pt1,…,tn〛s'M iff s = s' and {〚t1〛M,s,…, 〚tn〛M,s} I(P)

So,

s〚ACCn e〛s'

M iff s= s' and

i. 〚e〛M,s I(ACCn)

ii. ACCn {[ACC

n]CD , [ACCn]CPI}

iii. = ├

3131

ConclusionsConclusions

The general notion of modality (Acc) The general notion of modality (Acc) subsumes various expressions of futurity subsumes various expressions of futurity (rf, fp, tf). It can be translated into the DS-(rf, fp, tf). It can be translated into the DS-theoretic operator ACCtheoretic operator ACCΔΔ

nn. .

3232

ConclusionsConclusions

The general notion of modality (Acc) subsumes The general notion of modality (Acc) subsumes various expressions of futurity (rf, fp, tf). It can various expressions of futurity (rf, fp, tf). It can be translated into the DS-theoretic operator be translated into the DS-theoretic operator ACCACCΔΔ

nn. .

ACC ACC ΔΔnn, combined with CD and CPI 1, allows , combined with CD and CPI 1, allows

for representing the degrees of modality and for representing the degrees of modality and the degrees of informative intentions the degrees of informative intentions associated with the acts of communication that associated with the acts of communication that make use of these different forms. make use of these different forms.

3333

ACCACCΔΔnn also allows for representing also allows for representing

different modal uses of different modal uses of willwill such as such as dispositional and epistemic necessity.dispositional and epistemic necessity.

3434

DRT or truth-conditional pragmatics?DRT or truth-conditional pragmatics?

3535

DRT or truth-conditional pragmatics?DRT or truth-conditional pragmatics?

Compositional semantic theory Compositional semantic theory

of acts of communication of acts of communication

3636

Pragmatic composition view:Pragmatic composition view:

‘…‘…even if the semantic value of a word is fixed by even if the semantic value of a word is fixed by language (and context, if saturation language (and context, if saturation [filling in [filling in indexicals, ‘unarticulated constituents’, KJ]indexicals, ‘unarticulated constituents’, KJ] is is necessary), composing it with the semantic necessary), composing it with the semantic values for other words often requires help from values for other words often requires help from above above [top-down process, KJ][top-down process, KJ]. It is semantic . It is semantic composition which has a fundamentally composition which has a fundamentally pragmatic character.’ Recanati (2003:139).pragmatic character.’ Recanati (2003:139).

3737

Merger representations are Merger representations are compositional. They are mental compositional. They are mental representations that are coarse-grained representations that are coarse-grained equivalents of thoughts. equivalents of thoughts.

3838

Merger representations have truth Merger representations have truth conditions. conditions.

3939

Merger representations have truth Merger representations have truth conditions. conditions.

Default Semantics applies the amended Default Semantics applies the amended and extended DRT mechanism to merger and extended DRT mechanism to merger representations (e.g. incorporation of the representations (e.g. incorporation of the operator on eventualities operator on eventualities ACC eACC e))

4040

K.M. Jaszczolt, forthcoming, K.M. Jaszczolt, forthcoming, Default Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of CommunicationTheory of Acts of Communication, Oxford: , Oxford: Oxford University Press.Oxford University Press.

4141

Select referencesSelect references

Van Eijck, J. and H. Kamp. 1997. ‘Representing discourse in context’. In J. Van Eijck, J. and H. Kamp. 1997. ‘Representing discourse in context’. In J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (eds). van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (eds). Handbook of Logic and LanguageHandbook of Logic and Language. . Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. 179-237.Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. 179-237.

EnEnç, M. 1996. ‘Tense and modality’. In S. Lappin, ed. ç, M. 1996. ‘Tense and modality’. In S. Lappin, ed. The Handbook of The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic TheoryContemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 345-358.. Oxford: Blackwell. 345-358.

Grice, P. 2001. Grice, P. 2001. Aspects of ReasonAspects of Reason. Ed. By R. Warner. Oxford: Clarendon . Ed. By R. Warner. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Press.

Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof. 1991. ‘Dynamic Predicate Logic’. Groenendijk, J. and M. Stokhof. 1991. ‘Dynamic Predicate Logic’. Linguistics Linguistics and Philosophyand Philosophy 14. 39-100. 14. 39-100.

Jaszczolt, K. M. 2003. ‘The modality of the future: A Default-Semantics Jaszczolt, K. M. 2003. ‘The modality of the future: A Default-Semantics account’. In P. Dekker and R. van Rooy (eds). account’. In P. Dekker and R. van Rooy (eds). Proceedings of the 14Proceedings of the 14thth Amsterdam Colloquium.Amsterdam Colloquium. ILLC, University of Amsterdam. 43-48. ILLC, University of Amsterdam. 43-48.

Kamp, H. and U. Reyle. 1993. Kamp, H. and U. Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to LogicFrom Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Recanati, F. 2003. Recanati, F. 2003. Literal MeaningLiteral Meaning. Cambridge: CUP.. Cambridge: CUP.Schiffer, S. 2003. Schiffer, S. 2003. The Things We MeanThe Things We Mean. Oxford: Clarendon Press.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.