The epistemic value of the progressive operator
Authors
-
Victoria Ferrero Cabrera
Universidad de Buenos Aires
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6210-5113
Download
Abstract
In this paper, we aim to contribute to the study of the progressive meaning by exploring the contextual information to which it is sensitive. We argue that an adequate model for the operator must account for the relationship it establishes between a complete event interval and an ongoing event interval, not only in modal and temporal terms but also in eventive terms, particularly in combination with telic events. By this latter dimension, we refer to the mechanism speakers use to associate the ongoing situation with a type of event. We begin by suggesting that the interpretation of a progressive sentence involves a double inference: on the one hand, from a given situation, the speaker can identify a particular type of event in progress; on the other hand, they infer that the event will continue until completion. We propose an intentional analysis, where the first inference arises from the contribution of contextual epistemic information, while the second results from an inertia component, governed by a normality condition.
Keywords:
Progressive , Epistemic modality , Inertial worldsReferences
Bennett, M. y B. Partee. 1978. Toward the logic of tense and aspect in English. Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Dowty, D. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Reidel.
Ferreira, M. 2004. Imperfectives and plurality. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14: 74-91.
Kratzer, A. 1981. The notional category of modality. En H. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser (Eds.) Words, worlds and contexts - New approaches to word semantics, pp. 38-74. Walter de Gruyter.
______ 1991. Modality. En A. van Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.) Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research, pp. 639-650. Walter de Gruyter.
Kripke, S. 1980. Naming and necessity: Lectures given to the Princeton University Philosophy Colloquium. En Semantics of natural language, pp. 253-355. Springer Netherlands.
Landman, F. 1992. The progressive. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 1-32.
Parsons, T. 1989. The progressive in English: Events, states and processes. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(2): 213-241.
______ 1990. Events in the semantics of English. MIT Press.
Portner, P. 1998. The progressive in modal semantics. Language 74: 760-787.
Putnam, H. 1973. Meaning and reference. The Journal of Philosophy 70(19): 699-711.
Rothstein, S. 2004. Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Blackwell Publishing.
Russell, B. 1905. On Denoting. Mind 14: 479-493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479
Stalnaker, R. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. En M. K. Munitz & P. K. Unger (eds.) Semantics and philosophy, pp. 197-214. New York University Press.
Vlach, F. 1981. The semantics of the progressive. En P. Tedeschi y A. Zaenen (Eds.) Syntax and semantics 14: Tense and aspect, pp. 271-292. Academic Press.
Twitter