Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle 1993; Kamp, van Genabith & Reyle forthcoming )

1. The feature TENSE and the Simple Present in Truth-Conditional PragmaticsKasia Jaszczolt University of Cambridgehttp://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~kmj21IPrA panel Expressions of Time in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface, Riva del Garda, 15 July 2005

2. Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle 1993; Kamp, van Genabith & Reyle forthcoming)

3. Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle 1993; Kamp, van Genabith & Reyle forthcoming) • Contextual input to representation structures (DRT and Default Semantics, Jaszczolt 2005)

4. Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle 1993; Kamp, van Genabith & Reyle forthcoming) • Contextual input to representation structures (DRT and Default Semantics, Jaszczolt 2005) • Merger representations (Jaszczolt 2003, 2005)

5. Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle 1993; Kamp, van Genabith & Reyle forthcoming) • Contextual input to representation structures (DRT and Default Semantics, Jaszczolt 2005) • Merger representations (Jaszczolt 2003, 2005) • Merger representation for Simple Present expressing futurity

6. Temporality and tense in DRT (Kamp and Reyle 1993; Kamp, van Genabith & Reyle forthcoming) • Contextual input to representation structures (DRT and Default Semantics, Jaszczolt 2005) • Merger representations (Jaszczolt 2003, 2005) • Merger representation for Simple Present expressing futurity • Conclusion: truth-conditional semantics or pragmatics?

7. Mary will go to the opera tomorrow night. • Mary is going to the opera tomorrow night. • Mary goes to the opera tomorrow night. • Mary is going to go to the opera tomorrow night.

8. ‘The algorithm must represent the temporal information that is contained in the tense of a sentence and in its temporal adverb (if there is one).’ Kamp & Reyle (1993: 512)

9. ‘…[the feature] TENSE has three possible values, past, present, and future, signifying that the described eventuality lies before, at, or after the utterance time, respectively. The value of TENSE for a given sentence S is determined by the tense of the verb of S. When the main verb is in the simple past, TENSE = past; when it is in the simple present, TENSE = pres; and when the verb complex contains the auxiliary will, TENSE = fut.’ Kamp & Reyle (1993: 512-513)

10. (5)Tom plays with the Cambridge Philharmonia. (6) Tom plays in the Royal Albert Hall tomorrow.

11. ‘bottom-up’ vs. ‘top-down’ pragmatic enrichment (Stanley 2002 vs. Recanati 2002, 2004) Various uses to which Simple Present can be put in English are well handled by a contextualist (‘top-down’) account.

12. Default Semantics (Jaszczolt 2002; 2003; 2005, forthcoming) • quasi-contextualism • merger representations

13. Stage I combination of word meaning and sentence structure compositional merger representation conscious pragmatic inference 1 social - cultural defaults 1 cognitive defaults Stage II · social - cultural defaults 2 · co nscious pragmatic inference 2 Fig. 1

14. Pragmatic information, such as the output of CD, SCD 1 and CPI 1, contributes to the truth-conditional content of the utterance. • The representation of the truth-conditional content is a merger of information from (i) word meaning and sentence structure, (ii) conscious pragmatic processes, and (iii) default meanings. Merger representation.

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

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

18. (2)Mary is going to the opera tomorrow night. (futurative progressive) (3) Mary goes to the opera tomorrow night. (‘tenseless future’, Dowty 1979)

19. Grice’s (2001) Equivocality Thesis: Modals are univocal across the practical/alethic divide. Acc – modal operator, ‘it is (rationally) acceptable that’

20. Acc ￂp ‘it is acceptable that it is the case that p’ Acc ! p ‘it is acceptable that let it be that p’

21. Stage I combination of word meaning and sentence structure compositional merger representation conscious pragmatic inference 1 social - cultural defaults 1 cognitive defaults Stage II · social - cultural defaults 2 · co nscious pragmatic inference 2 Fig. 1

26. Gradation of modality: strength of informative intention

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

29. Conclusions • The general notion of modality (Acc) subsumes various expressions of futurity (rf, fp, tf). It can be translated into the DS-theoretic operator ACCΔn. • ACCΔn, combined with CD and CPI 1, allows for representing the degrees of modality and the degrees of informative intentions associated with the acts of communication that make use of these different forms.

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

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

32. Merger representations are compositional. They are mental representations that are coarse-grained equivalents of thoughts. • Merger representations have truth conditions.

33. Merger representations are compositional. They are mental representations that are coarse-grained equivalents of thoughts. • Merger representations have truth conditions. • Default Semantics applies the amended and extended DRT mechanism to merger representations (e.g. incorporation of the operator on eventualities ACC e)

34. A disclaimer: Interactive Default Semantics is not an alternative to DRT: it uses its tools ‘one level higher’, to the analysis of acts of intentional communication. Compositionality is predicated of the representations of these acts.

35. K.M. Jaszczolt, 2005, Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

36. Select references Van Eijck, J. & H. Kamp. 1997. ‘Representing discourse in context’. In J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen (eds). Handbook of Logic and Language. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. 179-237. Enç, M. 1996. ‘Tense and modality’. In S. Lappin, ed. The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 345-358. Grice, P. 2001. Aspects of Reason. Ed. By R. Warner. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Groenendijk, J. & M. Stokhof. 1991. ‘Dynamic Predicate Logic’. Linguistics and Philosophy 14. 39-100. Jaszczolt, K.M. 2002. Semantics and Pragmatics. London: Longman. Jaszczolt, K.M. 2003. ‘The modality of the future: A Default-Semantics account’. In P. Dekker & R. van Rooy (eds). Proceedings of the 14th Amsterdam Colloquium. ILLC, University of Amsterdam. 43-48. Jaszczolt, K.M. 2005. Default Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jaszczolt, K.M. forthcoming. ‘Futurity in Default Semantics’. In: K. von Heusinger & K. Turner (eds). Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics: The Michigan State University Papers. Oxford: Elsevier. Kamp, H. and U. Reyle. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kamp, H., J. van Genabith & U. Reyle. forthcoming. ‘Discourse Representation Theory’. In: D.M. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (eds). Handbook of Philosophical Logic. Second edition. Recanati, F. 2002. ‘Unarticulated constituents’. Linguistics and Philosophy 25. 299-345. Recanati, F. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: CUP.