@cite{condoravdi-2002}: Temporal Interpretation of Modals #
Condoravdi, C. (2002). Temporal Interpretation of Modals: Modals for the Present and for the Past. In D. Beaver, S. Kaufmann, B. Clark, & L. Casillas (Eds.), The Construction of Meaning. CSLI Publications.
Core claims #
- Uniform modal semantics: modals for the present and modals for the past share a single meaning. No implicit tense under the modal.
- Decompositional analysis: "might have" parses as MAY(PERF(φ)), not as a single lexical item MIGHT-HAVE.
- Temporal expansion: modals expand evaluation to a forward interval rather than shifting it. Forward orientation follows from this for eventive predicates; present-or-future for stative predicates.
- Scope–modality correlation: MODAL > PERF yields the epistemic reading; PERF > MODAL yields the counterfactual (metaphysical) reading. This follows from the diversity condition: metaphysical modal bases require non-settledness, which the past cannot provide.
Architecture #
- The
ATandatForwardprimitives live inTheories/Semantics/Tense/AT.lean. - Branching-time, settledness, and diversity live in
Core/Modality/HistoricalAlternatives.lean. - This file composes them into Condoravdi's specific operators and derives the paper's predictions.
Operators #
Present tense: instantiates a property at the utterance time. The temporal anchor is a single point.
Equations
- Condoravdi2002.pres sort P t w = Semantics.Tense.Modal.AtOperator.at' sort P w (Core.Time.Interval.point t)
Instances For
Perfect: shifts evaluation to a prior time. There is some t' < t at
which the property holds.
Equations
- Condoravdi2002.perf sort P w t = ∃ t' < t, Semantics.Tense.Modal.AtOperator.at' sort P w (Core.Time.Interval.point t')
Instances For
Modal cores vs. prospective modals #
The temporal evaluator is factored out: mayCore/wollCore quantify
over the modal base and check the prejacent at the perspective point,
while may/woll apply forward temporal expansion. Condoravdi's
English might/would use the prospective versions (futurity is
lexicalized in the modal). Languages whose modals are not inherently
future-oriented — @cite{matthewson-2013} argues Gitksan ima('a) is
one — should be modeled with mayCore/wollCore, with prospective
aspect supplied by a separate operator (Gitksan dim).
This is the structural expression of @cite{matthewson-2013}'s central anti-Condoravdi claim: the prospective component is a separable combinator, not part of the modal lexical entry.
Modal possibility core: ∃ w' ∈ MB(w,t), the prejacent holds at
the point t in w'. No forward expansion.
Equations
- Condoravdi2002.mayCore MB sort P w t = ∃ w' ∈ MB w t, Semantics.Tense.Modal.AtOperator.at' sort P w' (Core.Time.Interval.point t)
Instances For
MAY/MIGHT: existential quantification over the modal base, with forward temporal expansion. The English modal lexicalizes the prospective choice (@cite{condoravdi-2002}).
Equations
- Condoravdi2002.may MB sort P w t = ∃ w' ∈ MB w t, Semantics.Tense.Modal.AtOperator.atForward sort P w' t
Instances For
Modal necessity core: ∀ w' ∈ MB(w,t), the prejacent holds at
the point t in w'. No forward expansion.
Equations
- Condoravdi2002.wollCore MB sort P w t = ∀ w' ∈ MB w t, Semantics.Tense.Modal.AtOperator.at' sort P w' (Core.Time.Interval.point t)
Instances For
WOLL: universal quantification over the modal base, with forward
temporal expansion. The untensed modal underlying will / would;
contrasts with @cite{cariani-santorio-2018}'s atemporal-propositional
willSem.
Equations
- Condoravdi2002.woll MB sort P w t = ∀ w' ∈ MB w t, Semantics.Tense.Modal.AtOperator.atForward sort P w' t
Instances For
For dynamic predicates, mayCore implies may: forward expansion
is a weakening when the prejacent is checked at a point. The
pointwise instantiation gives an event whose start lies at or
after t, which is exactly what atEventForward requires.
For stative predicates, mayCore implies may: pointwise state
overlap entails forward state persistence at the point.
Composed scope readings #
The two scope orderings of MAY and PERF that derive epistemic vs.
counterfactual modality. The trivial single-operator examples
("He might run", "He might be here") are inlined as docstrings on
may rather than given separate names.
"He may have won" — epistemic reading. The modal scopes over the
perfect (PRES > MAY > PERF). Modal base evaluated at t; the
perfect back-shifts inside the modal's scope.
Equations
- Condoravdi2002.mayEpistemic MB P t w = ∃ w' ∈ MB w t, Condoravdi2002.perf Features.Dynamicity.dynamic P w' t
Instances For
"He might have won" — counterfactual reading. The perfect scopes
over the modal (PRES > PERF > MAY). The perfect shifts the modal
base's evaluation point to a past t'; the modal then quantifies
over worlds compatible with the past, with the property in
[t', _).
Equations
- Condoravdi2002.mightCounterfactual MB P t w = ∃ t' < t, Condoravdi2002.may MB Features.Dynamicity.dynamic P w t'
Instances For
Reading classification #
Temporal perspective: the time at which the modal base is evaluated.
- present : Perspective
Modal base evaluated at the utterance time.
- past : Perspective
Modal base evaluated at a prior time (via PERF > MODAL).
Instances For
Equations
- Condoravdi2002.instDecidableEqPerspective x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- Condoravdi2002.instReprPerspective = { reprPrec := Condoravdi2002.instReprPerspective.repr }
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Temporal orientation: the direction of temporal reference for the property in the modal's scope.
- future : Orientation
Property instantiated at or after the perspective time.
- past : Orientation
Property instantiated before the perspective time.
Instances For
Equations
- Condoravdi2002.instDecidableEqOrientation x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- Condoravdi2002.instReprOrientation = { reprPrec := Condoravdi2002.instReprOrientation.repr }
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The three attested readings of an English modal-perfect string. The fourth combination (past perspective + past orientation) is unattested and excluded by construction.
- present : ModalReading
"He might win." Future-oriented from a present perspective.
- epistemic : ModalReading
"He may have already won." Past-oriented from a present perspective (PRES > MAY > PERF).
- counterfactual : ModalReading
"He might still have won." Future-oriented from a past perspective (PRES > PERF > MAY).
Instances For
Equations
- Condoravdi2002.instDecidableEqModalReading x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- Condoravdi2002.instReprModalReading = { reprPrec := Condoravdi2002.instReprModalReading.repr }
Modal-base evaluation time of a reading.
Equations
Instances For
Direction of temporal reference of a reading.
Equations
Instances For
Bridge to Klein's PERF #
Condoravdi's eventive perf entails Klein's perfSimple: a prior
point of instantiation gives a degenerate PTS [t', t']
right-bounded at t.
Scope–modality correlation #
The relative scope of MODAL and PERF correlates with the kind of modality expressed:
- MODAL > PERF (epistemic): the modal's perspective is present; the property under it is back-shifted past. Past properties are settled, so the diversity condition blocks a metaphysical base — only epistemic modality remains available.
- PERF > MODAL (counterfactual): the modal's perspective is a past time; the property is in that past's future. Future properties are not settled, so a metaphysical base is available.
When MAY scopes over PERF, the property under the modal is back- shifted past. If this property is settled in the common ground (as past properties are), then a metaphysical modal base cannot satisfy diversity — restricting MODAL > PERF to epistemic modality.
When PERF scopes over MAY (counterfactual reading), the metaphysical
base at the past perspective t' ≤ now is a superset of the one at
now: backwards-closure of historical equivalence makes the past
base wider. This is the structural source of the counterfactual
reading's "could have been otherwise" force.
Adverb compatibility #
Frame adverbials are intersective predicate modifiers: they restrict
temporal reference to a period relative to the reference time. A frame
adverb is compatible with a modal reading exactly when its selected
period intersects the temporal region the modal projects. The eight
(in)compat theorems below follow from lt_irrefl/lt_of_lt_of_le/
le_refl rather than a lookup table.
A frame adverb selects a period of times relative to a reference time.
- name : String
- period : Time → Set Time
Instances For
Strictly before the reference time.
Equations
- Condoravdi2002.FrameAdverb.yesterday = { name := "yesterday", period := fun (now : Time) => {t : Time | t < now} }
Instances For
The reference time itself.
Equations
- Condoravdi2002.FrameAdverb.now_ = { name := "now", period := fun (now : Time) => {now} }
Instances For
Strictly after the reference time.
Equations
- Condoravdi2002.FrameAdverb.tomorrow = { name := "tomorrow", period := fun (now : Time) => {t : Time | now < t} }
Instances For
The temporal region in which a modal evaluates its scope, read off the AT relation:
- Future orientation:
atForwardrequires the property's temporal anchor to lie at or after the reference time. Projected region:[now, ∞). - Past orientation:
perfrequires a strictly earlier instantiation time. Projected region:(-∞, now).
Note: the eventive/stative distinction is not recorded here. The
AT relation permits now = e.start for atEventForward, so the
table-style "now is incompatible with eventive future" prediction
of the original paper is a pragmatic event-duration fact that
compatible does not formally exclude.
Equations
- Condoravdi2002.projectedRegion Condoravdi2002.Orientation.future now = {t : Time | now ≤ t}
- Condoravdi2002.projectedRegion Condoravdi2002.Orientation.past now = {t : Time | t < now}
Instances For
Compatibility: the adverb's selected period overlaps the modal's projected region.
Equations
- Condoravdi2002.compatible adv reading now = ∃ t ∈ adv.period now, t ∈ Condoravdi2002.projectedRegion reading.orientation now
Instances For
"He may get sick tomorrow." Future-oriented modal accepts a future
adverb (witnessed via NoMaxOrder).
"*He may get sick yesterday." Future-oriented modal rejects a past
adverb: any witness would satisfy t < now ∧ now ≤ t,
contradicting lt_irrefl.
"He may be sick now." The reference time witnesses overlap of {now}
with [now, ∞) via le_refl. The eventive variant ("??He may get
sick now") is marginal in the paper for pragmatic event-duration
reasons; see the projectedRegion docstring.
"He may have gotten sick yesterday." Past-oriented modal accepts a
past adverb (witnessed via NoMinOrder).
"*He may have gotten sick tomorrow." Past-oriented modal rejects a
future adverb: now < t ∧ t < now contradicts lt_irrefl via
lt_trans.
Fragment binding #
Might and perfect have are distinct aux heads in the English
Fragment. The decomposition "might have" = MAY(PERF(...)) and the
scope permutation deriving the epistemic vs counterfactual reading
both require the Fragment to classify them under different
auxTypes — if they ever fused (e.g., a single might-have modal
entry), the analysis would not apply at the surface-form level.
Co-binders of these entries (e.g., @cite{cariani-santorio-2018} on
will/would) are discoverable by greping
Fragments.English.Auxiliaries.<entry> across Phenomena/.