The semantics of the future

The Semantics of the Future

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 1-157

  Copley, Bridget ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PARIS 8   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84909419094     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203880258     Document Type: Book

References (113)

1. Abusch, D. (1985). On Verbs and Time. Ph. D. thesis, University of Massachusetts.
2. Abusch, D. (1997). Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(1), 1-50.
3. Austin, J. L. ([1955] 1976). How to do Things with Words: The William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford University Press.
4. Barwise, J. and R. Cooper (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(2), 159-210.
5. Barwise, J. and J. Perry (1983). Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
6. Bennett, M. and B. Partee (1978). Toward the Logic of Tense and Aspect in English. Bloomington, Ill.: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
7. Bhatt, R. (2000). Covert Modality in Non-finite Contexts. Ph. D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
8. Binnick, R. (1971). Will and be going to. In Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago. Chicago Linguistic Society.
9. Binnick, R. I. (1991). Time and the Verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Brand, S. (1995). How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built. New York: Penguin USA.
11. Brisard, F. (2001). Be going to: An exercise in grounding. Journal of Linguistics 37, 251-285.
12. Carlson, G. (1989). On the semantic composition of English generic sentences. In G. Chierchia, B. Partee, and R. Turner (Eds.), Properties, Types, and Meaning, II, pp. 167-192. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
13. Carlson, G. (1995). Truth conditions of generic sentences: Two contrasting views. In G. N. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The Generic Book, pp. 265- 299. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14. Chierchia, G. (1995). Individual-level predicates as inherent generics. In G. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The Generic Book, pp. 176-223. University of Chicago Press.
15. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. 's-Gravenhage: Mouton.
16. Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
17. Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
18. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step By Step. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
19. Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, pp. 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
20. Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: a cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford University Press.
21. Cipria, A. and C. Roberts (2000). Spanish imperfecto and pretérito: Truth conditions and aktionsart effects in a Situation Semantics. Natural Language Semantics 8, 297-347.
22. Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge University Press.
23. Condoravdi, C. (2001). Temporal interpretation of modals. In D. Beaver, S. Kaufmann, B. Clark, and L. Casillas (Eds.), Stanford Papers on Semantics. Palo Alto: CSLI Publications.
24. Copley, B. (2001). Be going to as a case of high aspect. In Proceedings of SALT XI, Ithaca, NY. Cornell Linguistics Circle.
25. Copley, B. (2002). A linguistic argument for indeterministic futures. In Proceedings of NELS 32.
26. Copley, B. (2005a). O'odham cem: when the actual world isn't inertial. In M. Becker and A. McKenzie (Eds.), The proceedings of the third meeting of Semantics of Underrepresented Languages of the Americas (SULA 3), Amherst, Mass. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics.
27. Copley, B. (2005b). Ordering and reasoning. In J. Gajewski, V. Hacquard, B. Nickel, and S. Yalcin (Eds.), New Work on Modality, Number 51, pp. 7-34. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
28. Copley, B. (2007). Aspect and scope in future conditionals. Revision of a 2003 manuscript of the same name. http://bcopley.com.
29. Copley, B. (2008a). The plan's the thing: Deconstructing futurates. Linguistic Inquiry 39(2), 261-274.
30. Copley, B. (2008b). Temporal orientation in conditionals. In J. Guéron and J. Lecarme (Eds.), Time and Modality. Springer.
31. Dahl, Ö. (1985). Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell.
32. Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In N. Rescher (Ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action. University of Pittsburgh Press.
33. Devens, M. (1972). Pima c1m. International Journal of American Linguistics 45, 349-61.
34. Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. Dowty, D. (1977). Towards a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English 'imperfective' progressive. Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 45-77.
36. Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.
37. von Fintel, K. (1995). Restrictions on Quantifier Domains. Ph. D. thesis, UMass Amherst.
38. von Fintel, K. (1997). Bare plurals, bare conditionals, and only. Journal of Semantics 14(1), 1-56.
39. von Fintel, K. (1999). NPI licensing, Strawson entailment, and context dependency. Journal of Semantics 16(2), 97-148.
40. da Fonseca, J. and P. Carolino ([1855] 2004). English as She Is Spoke: Being a Comprehensive Phrasebook of the English Language, Written by Men to Whom English was Entirely Unknown. San Francisco, Calif.: McSweeney's.
41. van Fraassen, B. (1966). Singular terms, truth-value gaps, and free logic. Journal of Philosophy 63, 481-495.
42. Fukui, N. and P. Speas (1986). Specifiers and projection. In MITWPL 8, pp. 128-172. Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL.
43. Geffner, H. (2002). Perspectives on artificial intelligence planning. In Proceedings of the eighteenth national conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1013-1023.
44. Hackl, M. (1998). On the semantics of ability attributions. MIT ms.
45. Hacquard, V. (2006). Aspects of Modality. Ph. D. thesis, MIT.
46. Hale, K. (1969, April). Papago cim. International Journal of American Linguistics 35(2), 203-212.
47. Heim, I. (1992). Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9, 183-221.
48. Heim, I. and A. Kratzer (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell.
49. Hornstein, N. (1990). As Time Goes By. MIT Press.
50. Huddleston, R. (1977). The futurate construction. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 730- 736.
51. Iatridou, S. (1990). The past, the possible, and the evident. Linguistic Inquiry 21(1), 123-129.
52. Iatridou, S. (1994). On the contribution of conditional then. Natural Language Semantics 2, 171-199.
53. Iatridou, S. (2000). The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 231-270.
54. Ippolito, M. (2002). The Time of Possibilities: Truth and Felicity of Subjunctive Conditionals. Ph. D. thesis, MIT.
55. Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
56. Karttunen, L. (1974). Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1(1-2), 181-194.
57. Kitagawa, Y. (1986). Subjects in Japanese and English. Ph. D. thesis, MIT.
58. Klein, W. (1997). Time in Language. New York: Routledge.
59. Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche (1991). The position of subjects. Lingua 85, 211-258.
60. Kratzer, A. (1981). The notional category of modality. In H.-J. Eikmeyer and H. Rieser (Eds.), Words, Worlds, and Contexts, pp. 38-74. Berlin: de Gruyter.
61. Kratzer, A. (1986). Conditionals. In Papers from the Regional Meetings, Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 1-15.
62. Kratzer, A. (1989). An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 607-653.
63. Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, pp. 639- 650. Berlin: de Gruyter.
64. Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the external argument from its verb. In J. Rooryck and L. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, pp. 109-137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
65. Kratzer, A. (1998). More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In D. Strolovitch and A. Lawson (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory VIII, Ithaca, NY, pp. 92-128. Cornell Linguistics Circle.
66. Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In P. v. E. B. Renate Bartsch, Johan van Benthem (Ed.), Semantics and Contextual Expressions, pp. 75-115. Dordrecht: Foris.
67. Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In I. Sag and A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical matters, pp. 29-53. Palo Alto: CSLI Publications.
68. Krifka, M. (1998). The origins of telicity. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and Grammar, pp. 197-235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
69. Kuroda, Y. (1988). Whether we agree or not. In W. Poser (Ed.), International Workshop on Japanese Syntax, Palo Alto, Calif. CSLI.
70. Lakoff, G. (1971). Presupposition and relative well-formedness. In L. A. J. Danny D. Steinberg (Ed.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics, and Psychology, pp. 329-340. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
71. Landman, F. (1992). The progressive. Natural Language Semantics 1(1), 1-32.
72. Leech, G. N. (1971). Meaning and the English Verb. Essex, U.K.: Longman Group Limited.
73. Lewis, D. (1968). On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
74. Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals and comparative possibility. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2(4), 418-446.
75. Lewis, D. (1975). Counterfactuals. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
76. Lewis, D. (1986). On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.
77. ter Meulen, A. (1995). Representing Time in Natural Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
78. Michaelis, L. (1996). On the use and meaning of already. Linguistics and Philosophy 19, 477-502.
79. Ogihara, T. (1996). Tense, Attitudes, and Scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
80. Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
81. Partee, B. (1984). Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 7(3), 243-286.
82. Portner, P. (1998). The progressive in modal semantics. Language 74(4), 760- 87.
83. Prince, E. (1971). Futurate be-ing, or Why Yesterday morning, I was leaving tomorrow on the Midnight Special is OK. Unpublished ms. read at the 1973 Summer Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America.
84. Prior, A. (1957). Time and Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
85. Prior, A. (1967). Past, Present, and Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
86. Prior, A. ([ca. 1958] 1996). Some free thinking about time. In J. Copeland (Ed.), Logic and Reality: Essays on the Legacy of Arthur Prior. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press
87. Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: MacMillan.
88. Reis Silva, M. A. (2007). Two futures in blackfoot. UBC ms.
89. Riddle, E. (1975). A new look at sequence of tenses. Paper read at annual winter meeting, Linguistic Society of America.
90. Rooth, M. (1995). Indefinites, adverbs of quantification, and focus semantics. In G. N. Carlson and F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The Generic Book, pp. 265-299. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
91. Rooth, M. (1996). Focus. In S. Lappin (Ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, pp. 271-297. Oxford: Blackwell.
92. Rothstein, S. (1999). Fine-grained structure in the eventuality domain: The semantics of predicative adjective phrases and be. Natural Language Semantics 7(4), 347-420.
93. Sarkar, A. (1998). The conflict between future tense and modality: The case of will in english. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 5(2), 91-117. UPenn ms.
94. Schachter, P. and F. Otanes (1972). Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.
95. Smith, C. (1991). The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
96. Stalnaker, R. (1968). A theory of conditionals. Philosophia 5, 269-286.
97. Stalnaker, R. (1998). On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 7(1), 3-19.
98. Stalnaker, R. (1999). Context and Content: Essays on Intensionality in Speech and Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
99. von Stechow, A. (1995). On the proper treatment of tense. In Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory V, Ithaca, N.Y., pp. 362-386.
100. Talmy, L. (1975). Semantics and syntax of motion, Volume 4, pp. 181-238. New York: Academic Press.
101. Talmy, L. (1985). Force dynamics in language and thought. In W. H. Eilfort, P. D. Kroeber, and K. L. Peterson (Eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity at the Twenty-First Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 293-337. Chicago Linguistic Society.
102. Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12(1), 49-100.
103. Thomason, R. (1970). Indeterminist time and truth-value gaps. Theoria 36, 264-281.
104. Thomason, R. (2005). Ability, action, and context.
105. Ultan, R. (1978). 1978. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Human Language 3: Word Structure, pp. 83-123. Palo Alto: CSLI.
106. Vendler, Z. (1967). Facts and events. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
107. Vetter, D. C. (1973). Someone solves this problem tomorrow. Linguistic Inquiry 4:1, 104-108.
108. Wekker, H. (1976). The Expression of Future Time in Contemporary British English. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.
109. Weld, D. S. (1994). An introduction to least commitment planning. AI Magazine 15, 27-61.
110. Werner, T. (2002). Deducing the future. In M. Kadowaki and S. Kawahara (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 33.
111. Werner, T. (2006, December). Future and non-future modal sentences. Natural Language Semantics 14(3), 235-255.
112. Wolff, P. (2007, February). Representing causation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 136(1), 82-111.
113. Wyner, A. (2000). Subject-oriented adverbs are thematically dependent. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar, pp. 333-348. Dordrecht: Kluwer.