Ordering and Reasoning

Bridget Copley (1)

1 SFL - Structures Formelles du Langage

This paper proposes a semantic distinction for modals. This distinction, which we will call reasoning, is the difference between imperfective modals, such as those that form part of the meaning of progressives and generics, and future modals, such as those that form part of the meaning of be going to and will. Traditionally, it has been presumed that imperfectives place their event overlapping the local evaluation time, while futures place it following the local evaluation time. But this generalization breaks down when cases involving intentions, manmade laws, and certain natural laws are considered. To determine the correct difference between these modals, it is necessary to examine more closely the conceptual underpinnings of the inertial ordering sources that pick out the worlds of quantification for these modals. Inertia is argued to be calculated from both natural forces and manmade forces (i.e., plans or rules); however, in general, only the latter can be applied at any temporal distance. This conceptual difference between the manmade and natural finally points us to the grammatical difference between imperfective and future modals: the former use only forces in the local situation when calculating the inertial ordering source (direct reasoning), while the latter permit extrapolation to forces resulting from those in the local situation (extrapolative reasoning). Certain odd physical forces, and the viability of a possible third value of reasoning, are also considered.

Mots clés: progressives; generics; modality; inertia; physical forces; intentions; futurates; futures

Domaines: Linguistique

Bridget Copley. Ordering and Reasoning. In Gajewski, Jon, Valentine Hacquard, Bernard Nickel, and Seth Yalcin (eds.) 2005, New Work on Modality (MITWPL 51)., 2005. ⟨halshs-00093612⟩