Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:51:49.045Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Future obligations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2019

PABLO FUENTES Open the ORCID record for PABLO FUENTES [Opens in a new window]
PABLO FUENTES*
Affiliation:
The University of Manchester
*
Author’s address: The University of Manchester, School of Arts, Languages and Cultures, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reflects on a double interpretation of English constructions containing the combined expression will have to. As I will show, illocutions involving sentences of the type ‘NP will have to VP’ can be interpreted as either (i) predicting future enforcing circumstances that trigger a future obligation or (ii) reporting such circumstances as currently in force at speech time. Once I sketch the different semantic elements at play in a Kratzerian framework, I cast doubt on some current views on the so-called modal–tense interaction. As I will show, one way to fully account for the availability of both readings is by assuming a semantic temporal underspecification as to when the triggering circumstances in the conversational background are initially in force. This raises important theoretical caveats for semantic analyses in the field, particularly for those that equate the semantics of the future with prediction. As the article shows, such a widespread assumption can be contended by a dynamic account of obligational ascriptions, according to which their different illocutionary forces can be derived from the contextual change potential of its primitive (and admittedly underspecified) future semantics. Ultimately, the paper voices support for the view that future semantics must not be equated with prediction.

Keywords

futuremodalityobligationspredictionstense
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 56 , Issue 3: Aspect beyond time , 01 August 2020 , pp. 601 - 628
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I thank three anonymous reviewers whose helpful comments greatly improved several aspects of this article. I am especially grateful to Martina Faller for numerous revisions of previous versions. Her insightful comments were crucial for pursuing an analysis despite the difficulties one inevitably faces when addressing these issues. I am also grateful to Graham Stevens, Delia Bentley, Eva Schultze-Berndt, Norman Yeo and to the audience of the Semantic Lab at the University of Manchester for helpful comments and feedback. All errors are my own.

References

Abusch, Dorit. 1997. Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics & Philosophy 20, 1–50.Google Scholar
Abusch, Dorit. 1985. On verbs and times. Ph.D dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo. 2002. Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and the past. In Beaver, David I., Kaufmann, Stefan, Clark, Brady Z. & Casillas Martinez, Luis D. (eds.), The construction of meaning, 59–88. Standford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Enç, Murvet. 1996. Tense and modality. In Lappin, Shalom (ed.), Handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 345–358. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fuentes, Pablo. 2019. Predictive illocutions and conversational scores. Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations 18, 7–36.Google Scholar
Fuentes, Pablo. in prep. Unachievable Duties. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Gennari, Silvia P. 2003. Tense meanings and temporal interpretations. Journal of Semantics 20, 35–71.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2006. Aspects of modality. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2009. On the interaction of aspect and modal auxiliaries. Linguistics and Philosophy 32, 279–312.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2010. On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries. Natural Language Semantics 18.1, 79–114.10.1007/s11050-010-9056-4Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2011. Modality. In Maienborn, Claudia, von Heusinger, Klaus & Portner, Paul (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, 1484–1515. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2016. Modals: Meaning categories?. In Blaszczak, Joanna, Giannakidou, Anastasia, Klimek-Jankowska, Dorota & Migdalski, Krzysztof (eds.), Mood, aspect, modality revisited, 45–74. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9, 183–221.10.1093/jos/9.3.183Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. Semantics & Linguistic Theory 8, 92–110.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2011. What “can” can mean. Lectures notes, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2012. Modals and conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laca, Brenda. 2008. On modal tenses and tensed modals. Ms., Universit Paris 8, CNRS.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2012. On the (non-)future of modals. Proceedings of sinn und bedeutung 16, vol. 2, 431–446. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2013. Gitksan modals. International Journal of American Linguistics 79.3, 349–394.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1973. Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. Journal of Philosophy 70, 601–609.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2009. Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1999. Context and content: Essays on intentionality in speech and thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 2012. Syntax. In Binnick, Robert (ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect, 184–211. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 2014. Capturing simultaneity: A commentary on the paper by Hamida Demirdache and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32, 897–915.Google Scholar
Zagona, Karen. 1990. Times and Temporal Argument Structure. Ms., University of Washington, Washington.Google Scholar