Documentation

Linglib.Studies.Sharvit2014

[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 #

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
    @[implicit_reducible]
    Equations
    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 none for tenseless languages (outside [Sha14]'s framework).

      Instances For
        Equations
        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
        Instances For
          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
            Instances For

              The past tense is pronominal (after [Par73]).

              Equations
              Instances For

                The past tense is quantificational (after Prior 1967).

                Equations
                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
                        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
                                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
                                  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
                                    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
                                      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
                                        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.

                                            Bridge to [Kra98a]: English's SOT rule realizes Kratzer's deletion of an agreeing past-under-past — english.hasSOT and Kratzer's morphological-identity condition (Decomposition.sotDeletionApplicable .past .past) jointly license the "null" embedded past.