Tense & Aspect … › semantics › course_core › lectures › new_tense_slides.pdfperfect/simple...

Tense & Aspecthttp://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~gawron/semantics

Parsing intro

Jean Mark Gawron

San Diego State University, Department of Linguistics

2010-08-19

Jean Mark Gawron ( SDSU ) Gawron: Tense & Aspect 2010-08-19 1 / 20

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~gawron/semantics

Overview

1 Introduction

2 Reichenbach

3 Familiarity analysis of tense

4 Revisiting issues


Outline

1 Introduction

2 Reichenbach


4 Revisiting issues


Tense

past-

event

Sue goes to Boston

〈time interval of event〉

future

now


Outline

1 Introduction

2 Reichenbach


4 Revisiting issues


Reichenbach

Reference Time (R): A time established in the discourse or in thecurrent sentence. A particular moment in time which may be past,present, or future.

Reference time

When John arrivedR, I was sleeping.

Event Time (E): The time of the event being described.

Speech Time (S): The time of utterance (now)


Reichenbach past,present,future

The Reichenbach analysis of past, present, and future tense is not reallysaying anything new. E and R are always the same time. The relationshipof R and S depends on the tense.

Tense

Past E,R S R precedes S; E=RPresent E,R,S R overlaps S; E=RFuture S E,R R follows S; E=R


The English Perfect

The analysis of the composite tenses is where Reichenbach’s analysis getsinteresting. In a perfect, E always precedes R, and never overlaps with it.The analysis of tense remains the same.

Composite tense Example

Past Perfect I had seen John.Present Perfect I have seen John.Future Perfect I will have seen John.

Reichenbach

Composite Reichenbach Perfect Tense

Past Perfect E R S E precedes R R precedes SPresent Perfect E R,S E precedes R R = SFuture Perfect S E R E precedes R R follows S

S,E RE S R


Compositionality

Perfect

Composite Reichenbach Perfect Tense

Past Perfect E R S E < R R < SPresent Perfect E R,S E < R R = SFuture Perfect S E R E < R R > S

S,E RE S R

Notice the compositionality of Reichenbach’s analysis of the perfect. Theperfect/simple aspect contrast has a meaning and each tense has ameaning. The resulting meaning is the sum of those meanings. Tense tellsus the relation of R and S (not E and S!); Perfect/non-perfect tells useither E precedes R (perfect) 0r E = R (simple).


Temporal Frame adverbials

This is where Reichenbach’s analysis makes predictions. Temporal frameadverbials modify time R (not time E!)(a) I saw Jones yesterdayR. R = E E < S(b) * I have seen Jones yesterdayR. R = S E < S(c) I saw Jones todayR. R = E E < S(d) I have seen Jones todayR. R = S E < S


Outline

1 Introduction

2 Reichenbach


4 Revisiting issues


Definiteness/indefiniteness

Familiarity:

(a) A dog came in. A dog laid down.(b) A dog came in. The dog laid down.

Familiarity applied to simple vs perfect tenses:

Simple The event time is a familiar timePerfect The event time is not a familiar time.


Examples

(a) What did you do after dinner?# I have watched the news.

(b) What did you do after dinner?I watched the news.

(a) (When you were in New York,) did you see Cats?# I have seen Cats.Yes, I saw Cats (when I was in New York).No, but I’ve seen it since.

(b) Tom didn’t read Moby Dick.Tom hasn’t read Moby Dick.


Consequences for Tense operators

I didn’t turn off the stove. (Partee 1973)

Two possible analyses:Specific ∃t < t∗ ∼ [turn-off(i, the stove) at t ]NonSpecific ∼ ∃t < t ∗ [turn-off(i, the stove) at t ]

Specific True iff at ANY past time t: I didnt turn off the stove at t TNonSpecific True iff at NO past time t: I turned off the stove at t T

Uh Oh! Both are wrong!

Familiarity ∼ [turn-off(i, the stove) at t ]True iff I didn’t turned off the stove at t Just right!


Free vs. Existentially quantifiedVariables are like pronouns. Their values depend on context.John thinks he is smart. he can be John or someone else.

think(j , smart(x))Every semanticist thinks he issmart.

∀x [semanticist(x) → think(x , smart(y))

Contrast I didn’t turn off the stove (free) versus John is unmarried(existentially quantified).

Right ∼ [turn-off(i, the stove) at t ] I didnt turn off the stove at t, atime in context.

Wrong ∼ ∃t[turn-off(i, the stove) at t ] There is no time at which Iturned off the stove.

Right ∼ ∃x [marry(j, x)] There is no one John married.Wrong ∼ [marry(j, x)] John did not marry x , someone

in context.


Outline

1 Introduction

2 Reichenbach


4 Revisiting issues


Homework problem revisited

Familiarity analysis of past tense → non-familiarity analysis of perfect

1 I haven’t turned off the stove.

2 I haven’t seen your dog.

3 I haven’t seen the Grand Canyon

4 I haven’t had breakfast.

5 I haven’t had chicken pox.

For example, is the following the right analysis of (1)?

∼ ∃t[turn-off(i, the stove) at t ]


Reichenbach revisited

Can we make the Reichenbach analysis compatible with the familiarityanalysis?

Reference Time (R): Atime established in thediscourse or in the currentsentence. A particularmoment in time.

Event Time (E): Time ofthe described event.

Speech Time (S): Time ofutterance (now)

Simple

Past E,R S E < SPresent E,R,S E = SFuture S E,R S < E

Perfect

Reichenbach Perfect Tense

Past E R S E < R R < SPresent E R,S E < R R = SFuture S E R E < R R = S

S,E RE S R


Reichenbach logical formAssuming the Reichbach analysis, what is the logical form of the following?

(a) I haven’t turned off the stove.(b) I didnt turn off the stove

Assume E is always existentially quantified. Assume R and S are freevariables whose values are determined by context.




Assume E is always existentially quantified. Assume R and S are freevariables whose values are determined by context. Hint 1: Assume thefollowing is PART of the answer:

∼ ∃E turn-off(i, the stove at E)

So the task is to figure out how to add R and S to the above formula intwo different ways to capture the difference between (a) and (b).







Hint 2:Tense Perfect/Simple

SimplePerfect

Note: In this chapter E, R, and S stand for times. In Chapter 9 (whichintroduces Davidson’s analysis), E stands for an event.








Simple R < S E = RPerfect









Simple R < S E = RPerfect R = S E < R



Problems for Reichenbach: R is a familiar time

(a) Tom gotE1 there by noon, but Molly hadleftE2 at 5:30.

at 5:30 modifies E2not E1 (=R)

(b) That evening the campers had alreadyleftE.

That evening modifiesR, not E

Two kinds of perfect

(a) Tense perfect: A problem for Reichenbach(b) Aspectual perfect: As predicted

(a) The car can’t getE1 to the station until3 but Leda will have arrivedE2 at noon,so she’ll have to wait.

at noon modifies E2not E1 (=R)

(b) Leda will have left at 10, so you will haveto come at 9 if you want to see her.

at 10 modifies R, notE


Tense & Aspect … › semantics › course_core › lectures › new_tense_slides.pdfperfect/simple...

Documents

Transcript of Tense & Aspect … › semantics › course_core › lectures › new_tense_slides.pdfperfect/simple...