1. CAS LX 502 Semantics 9a. Tense and aspect Ch. 8 etc.

2. Tense Chris was hungry. Chris was hungry. Chris is hungry. Chris is hungry. Both seem to be asserting that a state of hunger exists, but at different times. Both seem to be asserting that a state of hunger exists, but at different times. The hungry state existed before now. The hungry state existed before now. The hungry state exists now. The hungry state exists now. The morphological distinction (past/present) corresponds to this meaning difference. The morphological distinction (past/present) corresponds to this meaning difference.

3. The semantics of the future Chris will be hungry Chris will be hungry This seems to say that the state of hunger exists in the future. This seems to say that the state of hunger exists in the future. But the present can sometimes be used to indicate future as well. But the present can sometimes be used to indicate future as well. Chris registers for classes on Sunday. Chris registers for classes on Sunday. Chris leaves for vacation tomorrow. Chris leaves for vacation tomorrow. Two things: Two things: Present doesn’t mean “now.” Present doesn’t mean “now.” Future doesn’t need “will.” Future doesn’t need “will.”

4. English tense It seems actually that in English, will is not really a future tense marker, but rather just a modal. Like modals it seems to have past and non-past forms. It seems actually that in English, will is not really a future tense marker, but rather just a modal. Like modals it seems to have past and non-past forms. Pat will be hungry. Pat will be hungry. Pat would be hungry. Pat would be hungry. Furthermore, future doesn’t need will: Furthermore, future doesn’t need will: Pat leaves for India next week. Pat leaves for India next week. Pat is going to go to India next week. Pat is going to go to India next week. Pat hopes to go to India. Pat hopes to go to India.

5. Past vs. non-past English past really does seem to mean something like “before now” (or at least somehow “anterior”), but English “present” seems to be just non-past (rather than “now”). English past really does seem to mean something like “before now” (or at least somehow “anterior”), but English “present” seems to be just non-past (rather than “now”).

6. Connecting time to sentences The simplest way to think of time is as a specification of an event/state. The simplest way to think of time is as a specification of an event/state. So, a verb describes an event/state, and tense tells us something about when that event/state is in time relative to the speech time. So, a verb describes an event/state, and tense tells us something about when that event/state is in time relative to the speech time. Past would mean the event time precedes the speech time. Past would mean the event time precedes the speech time.

7. Turning off the stove I didn’t turn off the stove. I didn’t turn off the stove. Clearly this means something more sophisticated than “I have never turned off the stove.” It seems to be limited to some contextually relevant time. Clearly this means something more sophisticated than “I have never turned off the stove.” It seems to be limited to some contextually relevant time. Partee suggested that tense is a bit like a pronoun that “points” to something— something like “they” does. A relevant time (interval). Partee suggested that tense is a bit like a pronoun that “points” to something— something like “they” does. A relevant time (interval). Every girl dropped her lollipop. Every girl dropped her lollipop. Every time John left, he left the door open. Every time John left, he left the door open.

8. Reichenbach A quite well known approach to tense is due to Hans Reichenbach, who was also trying to account for aspect at the same time. A quite well known approach to tense is due to Hans Reichenbach, who was also trying to account for aspect at the same time. He proposed that tense and aspect set up relations between three times: He proposed that tense and aspect set up relations between three times: Speech time Speech time Reference time (a.k.a. “Topic time”) Reference time (a.k.a. “Topic time”) Event time Event time An easy illustration: An easy illustration: Tracy ate a cookie.E=R, R<S Tracy ate a cookie.E=R, R<S Tracy had eaten a cookie.E<R, R<S Tracy had eaten a cookie.E<R, R<S

9. Topic time It seems as if the “reference time” need not be a point, but rather an interval. It seems as if the “reference time” need not be a point, but rather an interval. We can differentiate between states and events (states are generally unchanging, at least locally). We can differentiate between states and events (states are generally unchanging, at least locally). Past seems to be something like: Past seems to be something like: E is within T, T<S (events) E is within T, T<S (events) Yesterday, Tracy coughed. Yesterday, Tracy coughed. T is within E, T<S (states) T is within E, T<S (states) Yesterday, Tracy had a cold. Yesterday, Tracy had a cold.

10. Sequence of tense John said that Mary was in Seattle. John said that Mary was in Seattle. Either Mary was in Seattle at the time John said this, or Mary was in Seattle prior to the time John said this. Either Mary was in Seattle at the time John said this, or Mary was in Seattle prior to the time John said this. But there are two pasts here. But there are two pasts here. It seems that in English, you can “ignore” a past under a past. It seems that in English, you can “ignore” a past under a past. John said he bought a fish that was still alive. John said he bought a fish that was still alive. Not true in all languages: in Japanese, you need to use non-past under past to get simultaneous. Not true in all languages: in Japanese, you need to use non-past under past to get simultaneous. Only I got a question that I understood. Only I got a question that I understood. Two meanings here. Tense acting like a pronoun again? Two meanings here. Tense acting like a pronoun again?

11. Would could should Interestingly, this can also provide an argument that will/would, can/could, may/might are really tense variants: Interestingly, this can also provide an argument that will/would, can/could, may/might are really tense variants: I think she is/was hungry I think she is/was hungry I thought she was hungry I thought she was hungry *I thought she is hungry *I thought she is hungry I think she can/could win I think she can/could win I thought she could win I thought she could win *I thought she can win *I thought she can win

12. Aspect One of the main reasons Reichenbach needed three time points was to accommodate aspect as well. One of the main reasons Reichenbach needed three time points was to accommodate aspect as well. Pat was hungry.T within E, T<S Pat was hungry.T within E, T<S Pat had been hungry.E<T, T<S Pat had been hungry.E<T, T<S Pat has been hungry.E<T, T=S Pat has been hungry.E<T, T=S Pat is hungry.T within E, T=S Pat is hungry.T within E, T=S The idea is that tense is responsible to relating T and S, and aspect for relating E and T. The idea is that tense is responsible to relating T and S, and aspect for relating E and T.

13. Perfect vs. Progressive If we suppose that tense situates a reference/topic time with respect to the speech time, aspect seems to situate an event around the reference time. If we suppose that tense situates a reference/topic time with respect to the speech time, aspect seems to situate an event around the reference time. Perfect: event completed at reference time. Perfect: event completed at reference time. Pat had eaten a cookie. Pat had eaten a cookie. Progressive: event ongoing at reference time. Progressive: event ongoing at reference time. Pat was eating a cookie. Pat was eating a cookie. Progressive seems to turn events into something like states—it isn’t really compatible with states. Progressive seems to turn events into something like states—it isn’t really compatible with states. Pat had been hungry. Pat had been hungry. *Pat was being hungry. *Pat was being hungry.

14. Classifying event types Atelic: Atelic: States (want, love, hate, know, believe) States (want, love, hate, know, believe) Activities (run, walk, swim, push a cart) Activities (run, walk, swim, push a cart) Telic: Telic: Achievements (recognize, find, stop, reach the top) Achievements (recognize, find, stop, reach the top) Accomplishments (run a mile, walk to the store, paint a picture, draw a circle) Accomplishments (run a mile, walk to the store, paint a picture, draw a circle) Something like an activity + an achievement Something like an activity + an achievement

15. Classifying events The different situation types essentially define the different kinds of “shadow” the situation casts on the timeline. The different situation types essentially define the different kinds of “shadow” the situation casts on the timeline.

16. Diagnosing event types Statives and achievements are generally incompatible with the progressive. Statives and achievements are generally incompatible with the progressive. Pat knows French. Pat is hungry. Pat knows French. Pat is hungry. #Pat is knowing French. #Pat is being hungry. #Pat is knowing French. #Pat is being hungry. #Pat is reaching the top. #Pat is reaching the top. Pat is walking. Pat is walking to the store. Pat is walking. Pat is walking to the store. (Individual-level) statives don’t sound good in the imperative. (Individual-level) statives don’t sound good in the imperative. Be tall! Know French! Be tall! Know French!

17. Lexical aspect vs. sentence aspect Lexically, predicates have an inherent situation type (aktionsart or lexical aspect). Lexically, predicates have an inherent situation type (aktionsart or lexical aspect). However, a sentence can denote a situation type that differs from the lexical aspect of its predicate. Structure also plays a role, sentence aspect can be coerced. However, a sentence can denote a situation type that differs from the lexical aspect of its predicate. Structure also plays a role, sentence aspect can be coerced. Pat knocked on the door. (achievement/semelfactive) Pat knocked on the door. (achievement/semelfactive) Pat is knocking on the door. (iterative, activity) Pat is knocking on the door. (iterative, activity) Pat drank beer. (activity) Pat drank beer. (activity) Pat drank a beer. (accomplishment) Pat drank a beer. (accomplishment)

18. Inchoative vs. resultative Different predicates can also concentrate on different parts of an event. Different predicates can also concentrate on different parts of an event. Melting is inchoative, focuses on the beginning. Melting is inchoative, focuses on the beginning. The ice is melting. (The ice has melted). The ice is melting. (The ice has melted). Baking a cake is resultative, focuses on the endpoint. Baking a cake is resultative, focuses on the endpoint. Pat is baking a cake. (Pat has not baked a cake). Pat is baking a cake. (Pat has not baked a cake).

19. Telicity An event that has a natural endpoint is said to be telic. An event that does not is said to be atelic. An event that has a natural endpoint is said to be telic. An event that does not is said to be atelic. Pat pushed the cart. Pat pushed the cart. Pat pushed the cart into the corner. Pat pushed the cart into the corner. Frame adverbials (in 5 minutes) and durative adverbials (for 5 minutes) can usually distinguish these: Frame adverbials (in 5 minutes) and durative adverbials (for 5 minutes) can usually distinguish these: Pat pushed the cart (#in 5 minutes) (for 5 minutes). Pat pushed the cart (#in 5 minutes) (for 5 minutes). Pat pushed the cart into the corner (in 5 minutes) (#for 5 minutes). Pat pushed the cart into the corner (in 5 minutes) (#for 5 minutes).

20. Aspect and telicity Even for a telic event (cross the street), the sentence aspect can affect whether a sentence implies that the endpoint was reached. Even for a telic event (cross the street), the sentence aspect can affect whether a sentence implies that the endpoint was reached. Pat crossed the street. Pat crossed the street. Pat has crossed the street. Pat has crossed the street. Pat was crossing the street. Pat was crossing the street.

21. Aside: Verbs of creation Suppose Pat dumps some flour into a mixing bowl. Suppose Pat dumps some flour into a mixing bowl. We can say that Pat is making pancakes or that Pat is making a cake. We can say that Pat is making pancakes or that Pat is making a cake. Which is it? Which is it? Jack is building a house. Jack is building a house. There’s an event e and an individual x such that e is building event, it includes the utterance time, the Agent of e is Jack, the Theme of e is x, and x is a house. There’s an event e and an individual x such that e is building event, it includes the utterance time, the Agent of e is Jack, the Theme of e is x, and x is a house.

22. The house Jack London was building when he died. In northern California, one can visit Jack London State Park and see the house that Jack London was building when he died. At least this is what the tourist guides say. It isn ’ t much of a house — only a foundation and parts of some walls. But native speakers of English call it a house. Ordinary language seems to be governed here by something like Plato ’ s theory of forms: material things that “ aspire after ” ideals are named after those ideals, in spite of their failure to live up to the ideal itself. In short, people describe unfinished houses as “ houses, ” and my analysis assumes that this is the correct usage. The problem is not ontological — everyone agrees that the thing in question exists. The issue is whether it is a house. (Parsons 1990:174) In northern California, one can visit Jack London State Park and see the house that Jack London was building when he died. At least this is what the tourist guides say. It isn ’ t much of a house — only a foundation and parts of some walls. But native speakers of English call it a house. Ordinary language seems to be governed here by something like Plato ’ s theory of forms: material things that “ aspire after ” ideals are named after those ideals, in spite of their failure to live up to the ideal itself. In short, people describe unfinished houses as “ houses, ” and my analysis assumes that this is the correct usage. The problem is not ontological — everyone agrees that the thing in question exists. The issue is whether it is a house. (Parsons 1990:174) Cf also Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See, p. 146. Cf also Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See, p. 146.

23. Was Max crossing the street? It seems that simply venturing out into the road isn’t necessarily crossing the street. It seems that simply venturing out into the road isn’t necessarily crossing the street. But the beginnings are the same. But the beginnings are the same. And if there’s a catastrophe with a bus, the road is never actually crossed. And if there’s a catastrophe with a bus, the road is never actually crossed. Yet it seems that Max was crossing the street, when he was hit by the bus. Not simply venturing into the road. Yet it seems that Max was crossing the street, when he was hit by the bus. Not simply venturing into the road. There seems to be some kind of modality here: Crossing the street is the “normal” conclusion of what Max was doing, even if he doesn’t make it in every possible world. There seems to be some kind of modality here: Crossing the street is the “normal” conclusion of what Max was doing, even if he doesn’t make it in every possible world.

24. Predicates and objects If we think about the denotation of apples as compared to an apple, only the latter has a definite boundary. How big is an apple? How big is apples? Similarly, how big is soup? If we think about the denotation of apples as compared to an apple, only the latter has a definite boundary. How big is an apple? How big is apples? Similarly, how big is soup? Events are sort of like this too. A telic event has a size, a boundary. Reach the top vs. climb. Events are sort of like this too. A telic event has a size, a boundary. Reach the top vs. climb. We can think of events as sort of like abstract individuals. We can think of events as sort of like abstract individuals. I saw Pat eat lunch. I saw Pat eat lunch. Fido’s barking kept me awake. Fido’s barking kept me awake.

25. Mass and count Nouns can be distinguished into two types, those that can be counted (count), and those that can’t (mass). Nouns can be distinguished into two types, those that can be counted (count), and those that can’t (mass). I have two tomatoes. I have two tomatoes. #I have two barleys. #I have two barleys. One thing that differentiates them is what happens if you cut them in half: One thing that differentiates them is what happens if you cut them in half: If you divide your tomato, neither resulting thing is a tomato. If you divide your tomato, neither resulting thing is a tomato. If you divide your barley, both resulting things are barley. If you divide your barley, both resulting things are barley.

26. Homogeneity Soup + soup = soup Soup + soup = soup Tomato + tomato = 2 tomatoes. Tomato + tomato = 2 tomatoes. We can call the property that mass nouns have homogeneity. We can call the property that mass nouns have homogeneity. Pretty much the same property can be said to hold of states and activities, but not accomplishments or achievements. Pretty much the same property can be said to hold of states and activities, but not accomplishments or achievements. Eating + eating = eating Eating + eating = eating Being tall + being tall = being tall Being tall + being tall = being tall Walking to the store + walking to the store = walking to the store twice. Walking to the store + walking to the store = walking to the store twice. Finding a quarter + finding a quarter = finding two quarters Finding a quarter + finding a quarter = finding two quarters

27. Combining predicates and objects Interestingly, for something like eat (an activity, homogeneous), if it is combined with a homogeneous object, the result is a homogeneous activity, but when it is combined with a bounded object, the result is a bounded event (accomplishment). Interestingly, for something like eat (an activity, homogeneous), if it is combined with a homogeneous object, the result is a homogeneous activity, but when it is combined with a bounded object, the result is a bounded event (accomplishment). Pat ate soup (for an hour) (#in an hour). Pat ate soup (for an hour) (#in an hour). Pat ate the apple (??for an hour) (in an hour). Pat ate the apple (??for an hour) (in an hour).

28. Coercion/shifting Things that are normally count nouns can be treated as mass nouns if coerced, and vice versa. Things that are normally count nouns can be treated as mass nouns if coerced, and vice versa. There is too much apple in the salad. There is too much apple in the salad. I ordered two soups. I ordered two soups. And, then: And, then: I ate a soup in five minutes. I ate a soup in five minutes. I ate apple for five minutes. I ate apple for five minutes.

29. Sentences as denoting events One way of looking at what sentences mean is as event descriptions. One way of looking at what sentences mean is as event descriptions. Pat ate an apple. Pat ate an apple. (There was) an eating, it affected an apple, it was instigated by Pat. (There was) an eating, it affected an apple, it was instigated by Pat. Like definite descriptions denote individuals, sentences denote events. Like definite descriptions denote individuals, sentences denote events. The student in the corner. The student in the corner.

30. Sentences as denoting events Some events are described by Pat swam. Some events are described by Pat swam. Some of those are described by Pat swam fast. Some of those are described by Pat swam fast. If we look at sentences in this way, we can understand why Pat swam fast entails that Pat swam. All of the events described by Pat swam fast also fit the description of Pat swam. If we look at sentences in this way, we can understand why Pat swam fast entails that Pat swam. All of the events described by Pat swam fast also fit the description of Pat swam. Pat struck the door. Pat struck the door. Pat struck the door violently. Pat struck the door violently. Pat struck the door with a hammer. Pat struck the door with a hammer. Pat struck the door violently with a hammer. Pat struck the door violently with a hammer.

31.                       