Affiliation:
1. Département de langues, linguistique et traduction , Université Laval , Québec , QC , Canada
Abstract
AbstractThis study argues that many of the formalizations used in analyses employing the notion of logical scope fail to conform to natural language in important ways and lead to false predictions. This is due to the fact that they pursue the logic-driven goal of making the structure of logical arguments more transparent and mechanically calculable rather than the language-driven goal of accounting for how the linguistic signs used in an utterance and their configuration contribute to the conveying of the message being fashioned by the speaker. The focus of the study is on categories associated with the verb: tense, aspect, modality and negation. The conclusion suggests that very precise and rigid theories using logical scope relations may force the theorist to straitjacket the data so that they fit the theory, thereby obscuring rather than clarifying the nature of linguistic categories and their interactions. Informal analyses that hew closer to natural language’s semantic reality can provide greater understanding of phenomena such as the purported non-negatability ofmust. Seeing this English modal’s meaning as defined in opposition to real existence leads to the realization that it does not interact with negation the same way as the reality of the existence of the property of being necessary does.
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics
Reference60 articles.
1. Abusch, Dorit. 1997. Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(1). 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005331423820.
2. Bolinger, Dwight. 1989. Extrinsic possibility and intrinsic potentiality: 7 on may and can +1. Journal of Pragmatics 13(1). 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(89)90107-0.
3. Bonomi, Andrea. 1997. Aspect, quantification and when-clauses in Italian. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(5). 469–514. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005388230492.
4. Chierchia, Gennaro & Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1990. Meaning and grammar. An introduction to semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Condoravdi, Cleo. 2002. Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. In David Beaver, Luis D. Casillas Martinez, Brady Z. Clark & Stefan Kaufmann (eds.), The construction of meaning, 59–87. Stanford: CSLI Publications.