Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2018: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 32, Utrecht
Edited by Sergio Baauw, Frank Drijkoningen and Luisa Meroni
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 357] 2021
► pp. 71–96

Chapter 4
The varieties of temporal anaphora and temporal coincidence

| Nantes University | CNRS
This paper explores the temporal construals of perfective vs. imperfective aspect in Sequence of Tense contexts in Spanish and French, in particular, under ellipsis. The distribution of past-shifted vs. simultaneous, as well as sloppy vs. strict, temporal construals is taken to support extending to viewpoint aspect a referential approach to tense, as Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria (2014) contend. I derive the distribution of simultaneous vs. past-shifted readings by extending their analysis of imperfective vs. perfective to embedded contexts. The intricate distribution of strict vs. sloppy (simultaneous, as well as past-shifted) readings is explained by extending the LF-parallelism constraint on ellipsis (Fox 2000) – specifically, the assumption that structural parallelism yields sloppy readings, while referential parallelism yields strict readings – to temporal anaphora under ellipsis.
Keywords: perfective, imperfective, sequence of tense, simultaneous past, past-shifting, temporal ellipsis, temporal binding, strict past, sloppy past, temporal parallelism
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Temporal anaphora and viewpoint aspect
    • 2.1Temporal syntax of tense & aspect
    • 2.2More viewpoints: Imperfective and perfective
    • 2.3Temporal anaphora
      • 2.3.1Temporal coreference
      • 2.3.2Temporal binding
  • 3.Imperfective vs. perfective past in embedded contexts
    • 3.1Sequence of Tense (SoT)
    • 3.2Why perfective (unlike imperfective) enforces past-shifting
  • 4.Strict vs. sloppy temporal construals
    • 4.1Temporal ellipsis: Structural vs. referential parallelism
    • 4.2Perfective past in ellipsis contexts
    • 4.3Imperfective past in ellipsis contexts
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.357.04dem
References (24)
References
Altshuler, Daniel. 2016. Events, states and times: An essay on narrative discourse in English. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altshuler, Daniel & Roger Schwarzschild. 2012. Moment of change, cessation implicatures and simultaneous readings. In Emmanuel Chemla, Vincent Homer & Grégoire Winterstein (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17, 45–62.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Demirdache, Hamida & Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria. 2007. The syntax of time arguments. Lingua 117. 330–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Aspect and temporal anaphora. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32. 855–895. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enç, Murvet. 1987. Anchoring conditions for tense. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 633–657.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gennari, Sylvia. 2003. Tense meaning and temporal interpretation. Journal of Semantics 20. 35–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1998. Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart’s approach. In Orin Percus & Uli Sauerland (eds.), The interpretive tract (MIT Working Paper in Linguistics 25), 205–246. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Christian Rohrer. 1983. Tense in texts. In Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwartze & Armin von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language, 250–269. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kauf, Carina & Hedde Zeijlstra. 2018. Towards a new explanation of sequence of tense. Proceedings of SALT 28, 59–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2000. An analysis of the German perfekt. Language 76(2). 358–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelica. 1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. Proceedings of SALT 8, 92–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laca, Brenda. 2005. Périphrases aspectuelles et temps grammatical dans les langues romanes. In Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot & Nicole Le Querler (eds.), Les périphrases verbales (Lingvisticae Investigationes Supplementa 25), 47–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molendijk, Arie. 2005. The imparfait of French and the past progressive of English. In Bart Hollebrandse, Angeliek van Hout, & Co Vet (eds.), Crosslinguistic views on tense, aspect and modality (Cahier Chronos 13), 119–129, Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 1996. Tense, attitudes and scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1973. Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy 70. 601–609. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Strategies of anaphora resolution. UiL OTS Working Papers, TL97-007. Utrecht: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Ph.D. Dissertation: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Schaden, Gerhard. 2009. Composés et surcomposés. Le “parfait” en Français, Allemand, Anglais et Espagnol. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota. 1991. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 2007. The syntactic expression of tense. Lingua 117. 437–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Capturing simultaneity: A commentary on the paper by Hamida Demirdache & Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32. 897–915. DOI logoGoogle Scholar