[Sha14]: On the universal principles of tense embedding #
[Sha14] [OS12] [Sha03] [BC03] [Par73]
[Sha14] ("On the universal principles of tense embedding: The lesson from before",
J. Semantics 31(2):263-313) makes the pronominal/quantificational tense distinction (after
[Par73] vs Prior 1967) the engine for cross-linguistic variation in before-clauses
(English/Polish vs Japanese) and attitude reports. The IPF mechanism it rests on is the
[BC03] before semantics (Semantics/Tense/TemporalConnectives/Before.lean);
the pronominal/quantificational substrate is Semantics/Tense/LexicalType.lean.
Main definitions #
Shiftability— three-valued present shiftability ((71), p. 289): a fully shiftable present (Japanese), a semi-shiftable one (Polish), or a non-shiftable one (English).LanguageTenseProfile— a language's three tense parameters ((98), p. 300): the SOT rule, the present's shiftability, and the past tense's lexical type (Option LexicalType, no-mixing structural;none= tenseless / out of scope).- The derived predicates (
wellFormedPastUnderPastBefore, …) are grounded in the substrate, not re-stipulated: well-formedness routes throughBefore.triggersIPFInBefore, SOT-deletion throughDecomposition.sotDeletionApplicable. eq99a/eq99b/eq99c— Sharvit's three universal predictions ((99), p. 301).
Scope #
In the typology: English (type 6), Polish (type 10), Japanese (type 11) of (98). Excluded:
Modern Greek and Spanish A/B (§6.2, (105), pp. 303-304), which need a mood parameter and — for
Spanish B — a mixed past/present lexical type this profile cannot represent (Sharvit frames them
as illustrative, p. 305); and tenseless languages (pastLexicalType = none), outside the
no-tenseless assumption (§6.1, p. 299).
The parameter space ((98)) #
The present tense's shiftability, three-valued per [Sha14] (71)/(78), pp. 288-291: Japanese is fully shiftable, Polish semi-shiftable (bindable, but not by the same binder as its referential index), English non-shiftable (forced free). The distinction is load-bearing: only a fully shiftable present yields a well-formed present-under-past before-clause, so Polish patterns with English there despite being bindable in attitudes.
- nonShiftable : Shiftability
Forced free; cannot be bound (English).
- semiShiftable : Shiftability
Bindable, but not by the binder of its referential index (Polish).
- fullyShiftable : Shiftability
Freely bindable (Japanese).
Instances For
Equations
- Sharvit2014.instDecidableEqShiftability x✝ y✝ = if h : x✝.ctorIdx = y✝.ctorIdx then isTrue ⋯ else isFalse ⋯
Equations
- Sharvit2014.instReprShiftability = { reprPrec := Sharvit2014.instReprShiftability.repr }
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
A language's tense profile per [Sha14] (98), p. 300: the SOT rule, the present's
shiftability, and the past tense's lexical type. The no-mixing assumption (§6.1, p. 300)
is enforced structurally by Option LexicalType (one past type, or none for tenseless).
- hasSOT : Bool
The SOT rule: deletion of an agreeing embedded tense.
- presentShiftability : Shiftability
The present tense's shiftability ((71), p. 289).
- pastLexicalType : Option Tense.LexicalType
The past tense's lexical type, or
nonefor tenseless languages (outside [Sha14]'s framework).
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The language has tenses ([Sha14]'s no-tenseless precondition, §6.1, p. 299).
Equations
- L.hasTenses = L.pastLexicalType.isSome
Instances For
The past tense is pronominal (after [Par73]).
Equations
- L.isPronominal = (L.pastLexicalType == some Tense.LexicalType.pronominal)
Instances For
The past tense is quantificational (after Prior 1967).
Equations
- L.isQuantificational = (L.pastLexicalType == some Tense.LexicalType.quantificational)
Instances For
The present can be bound at all (semi- or fully shiftable) — enough to host a "now"-thought in attitudes.
Equations
Instances For
The present is fully shiftable (Japanese), the condition for a well-formed present-under-past before-clause ((78), p. 291).
Equations
Instances For
Derived empirical predicates #
These are not independent stipulations: the before-well-formedness predicate routes through the
[BC03] IPF dispatch Before.triggersIPFInBefore, and the SOT-derived predicates
through Kratzer's deletion condition Decomposition.sotDeletionApplicable.
SOT-deletion of an agreeing past-under-past applies when the language has the SOT rule, routed
through Decomposition.sotDeletionApplicable (Kratzer's morphological-identity condition, here
.past/.past).
Equations
Instances For
PAST-under-PAST in before is well-formed iff the past does not trigger IPF — the
technical core Before.ipf_quantificationalPast. The body calls the IPF dispatch
Before.triggersIPFInBefore; wellFormedPastUnderPastBefore_iff_pronominal records the
resulting equivalence to isPronominal (= Before.pastUnderBefore_wellFormed_iff).
Equations
- L.wellFormedPastUnderPastBefore = match L.pastLexicalType with | some τ => !Tense.TemporalConnectives.Before.triggersIPFInBefore τ | none => false
Instances For
PRES-under-PAST in before is well-formed iff the present is fully shiftable (the Stump effect, p. 278): English (non-shiftable) and Polish (semi-shiftable) are both ruled out; only Japanese is well-formed ((78), p. 291).
Equations
Instances For
"Simultaneous" past-under-past reading in attitude reports ((59b), p. 284): the past is pronominal and SOT-deletion applies. This is the SOT-derived reading; Japanese's distinct (present-tense) simultaneous reading ((47), p. 280) is a different mechanism, not this.
Equations
Instances For
Bare before-clause p-shiftability ((51), p. 281): the embedded past can refer to a future time. Requires a quantificational past (Japanese); absent in English/Polish.
Equations
Instances For
Embedded before-clause p-shiftability ((66)-(68), p. 287): under a matrix attitude verb, even pronominal-past languages acquire p-shiftability via SOT-deletion of the matrix past. (Hedged in the paper — "for many speakers".)
Equations
- L.pShiftabilityEmbedded = (L.isQuantificational || L.isPronominal && L.sotAppliesPastUnderPast)
Instances For
[Sha14]'s Embeddability Principle (Sharvit 2003, restated p. 299): every language has at least one mechanism for embedding a "now"-thought (SOT, a shiftable present, or a quantificational past).
Equations
- L.respectsEmbeddability = (L.hasSOT || L.hasShiftablePresent || L.isQuantificational)
Instances For
A pronominal past is not quantificational — the Option LexicalType no-mixing constraint.
Well-formedness of past-under-past in before coincides with a pronominal past — imported
from the IPF result (Before.pastUnderBefore_wellFormed_iff), not re-stipulated.
Attested language types ((98), p. 300) #
English (type 6 in (98)): SOT, non-shiftable present, pronominal past.
Equations
- Sharvit2014.english = { hasSOT := true, presentShiftability := Sharvit2014.Shiftability.nonShiftable, pastLexicalType := some Tense.LexicalType.pronominal }
Instances For
Polish (type 10 in (98)): no SOT, semi-shiftable present, pronominal past. The "semi-shiftable" hedge (§4.2) distinguishes Polish from Japanese: Polish's present is bindable in attitudes but not fully shiftable, so present-under-past in before is still ill-formed (it patterns with English, not Japanese). Grønn & von Stechow argue against the parameter, attributing the Polish pattern to Aktionsart; the encoding here follows Sharvit.
Equations
- Sharvit2014.polish = { hasSOT := false, presentShiftability := Sharvit2014.Shiftability.semiShiftable, pastLexicalType := some Tense.LexicalType.pronominal }
Instances For
Japanese (type 11 in (98)): no SOT, fully-shiftable present, quantificational past. The quantificational classification follows [Ogi96], the canonical and dominant view; it is contested by relative-tense alternatives (Kusumoto 1999, Sudo 2012).
Equations
- Sharvit2014.japanese = { hasSOT := false, presentShiftability := Sharvit2014.Shiftability.fullyShiftable, pastLexicalType := some Tense.LexicalType.quantificational }
Instances For
The attested language types in Sharvit's table ((98)).
Equations
Instances For
Structural constraints (§6.1) #
Every attested language has tenses (the no-tenseless assumption holds within scope).
Every attested language respects [Sha14]'s Embeddability Principle.
Cross-linguistic predictions ((99), p. 301) #
Stated and proved over all profiles, not the three attested rows: each prediction follows structurally from the parameter definitions and the substrate grounding.
[Sha14] (99a): a well-formed present-under-past in before implies a shiftable present.
Non-trivial under the three-valued Shiftability: well-formedness needs full shiftability,
which strictly implies the weaker "shiftable at all" (Polish witnesses the gap).
[Sha14] (99b): well-formed PAST-under-PAST in before + embedded p-shiftability ⇒
a simultaneous reading of past-under-past in attitudes. Given a pronominal past (from
well-formedness), the isQuantificational disjunct of pShiftabilityEmbedded vanishes, so the
embedded p-shiftability is the SOT-deletion that licenses the simultaneous reading.
[Sha14] (99c): well-formed PAST-under-PAST in before + no simultaneous reading ⇒
No-p-shiftability of bare past-under-past before. Under this encoding the consequent already
follows from well-formedness (a pronominal past is not quantificational, so the bare clause
lacks p-shiftability); the no-simultaneous antecedent (_hNoSim) is Sharvit's, kept for
fidelity to (99c) but not load-bearing here.
Substrate connection: IPF and quantificational past #
The wellFormedPastUnderPastBefore predicate is grounded in the [BC03] IPF
result formalized in TemporalConnectives/Before.lean; the two theorems below consume that
grounding via wellFormedPastUnderPastBefore_iff_pronominal.
Quantificational-past languages (Japanese) fail wellFormedPastUnderPastBefore, matching the
IPF prediction (Before.ipf_quantificationalPast).
Pronominal-past languages (English, Polish) satisfy wellFormedPastUnderPastBefore, in keeping
with Before.pastUnderBefore_wellFormed_iff.
Per-language payload #
The central typological contrast — and a regression guard on the three-valued shiftability: a
binary shiftablePresent would wrongly make Polish's present-under-past in before well-formed.
Cross-paper bridge to [Kra98a] #
The Sharvit ↔ [Kle16] comparison (same simultaneous-reading prediction, different
mechanisms) lives in the later paper's study file, Studies/Klecha2016.lean §F1.
[Sha14]'s prediction for English: SOT + pronominal past yields the simultaneous reading of past-under-past in attitudes.