Abstract
In opposition to a common assumption, this paper defends the idea that the auxiliary verb will has no other semantic contribution in contemporary English than a temporal shift towards the future with respect to the utterance time. Strong reasons for rejecting the idea that will quantifies over possible worlds are presented. Given the adoption of Lewis’s and Kratzer’s views on modality, the alleged ‘modal’ uses of will are accounted for by a pragmatic mechanism which restricts the domain of the covert epistemic necessity operator scoping over the sentence.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Abusch, D. 1988. Sequence of tense, intensionality and scope. In Proceedings of the Seventh West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. H. Borer, 1–14. Stanford: Stanford Linguistic Association.
Abusch D. (1997). Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(1): 1–50
Abusch, D. 1998. Generalizing tense semantics for future contexts. In Events and grammar, ed. S. Rothstein, 13–33. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Anscombe G.E.M. (1957). Intention. Blackwell, Oxford
Carlson, G.N. 1989. English generic sentences. In Properties, types and meaning, Vol. 2: Semantic issues, ed. G. Chierchia, B.H. Partee and R. Turner, 167–192. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Comrie B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Condoravdi, C. 2002. Temporal interpretation of modals. Modals for the present and for the past. In The construction of meaning, ed. D.I. Beaver, L.D.C. Martinez, B.Z. Clark, and S. Kaufmann, 59–88. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Copley, B. 2002. The semantics of the future. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Copley, B. 2005. What should should mean? Paper presented at the Language Under Uncertainty Workshop, Kyoto University, January 2005.
Davidson D. (2001). Essays on actions and events, Second edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dendale P. (1994). Devoir épistémique: marqueur modal ou évidentiel? Langue française 102: 24–40
Ducrot O. (1984). Le dire et le dit. Minuit, Paris
Enç, M. 1996. Tense and modality. In The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. S. Lappin, 345–358. Oxford: Blackwell.
Geurts, B. 2004. On an ambiguity in quantified conditionals. Manuscript, University of Nijmegen.
Geurts B. (2005). Entertaining alternatives: disjunctions as modals. Natural Language Semantics 13: 383–410
Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, ed. P. Cole and J.L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
Grice H.P. (2001). Aspects of reason. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Haegeman L.M. (1983). The semantics of will in present-day British English: a unified account. Royal Academy of Belgium, Brussels
Hornstein N. (1990). As time goes by: tense and universal grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Hughes G.E., Cresswell M.J. (1996). A new introduction to modal logic. Routledge, London
Jaszczolt, K.M. 2006. Futurity in default semantics. In Where semantics meets pragmatics, ed. K. von Heusinger and K. Turner, 471–492. Oxford: Elsevier.
Kamp H., Reyle U. (1993). From discourse to logic: introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Karttunen, L. 1972. Possible and must. Syntax and semantics, Vol. 1, ed. J. Kimball, 1–20. New York: Academic Press.
Kaufmann, S., C. Condoravdi, and V. Harizanov. 2006. Formal approaches to modality. In The expression of modality, ed. W. Frawley, 71–106. Berlin: de Gruyter.
King J.C. (2003). Tense, modality, and semantic values. Philosophical Perspectives 17: 195–245
Kratzer, A. 1991a. Conditionals. In Semantics: an international handbook of contemporary research, ed. A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, 651–656. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kratzer, A. 1991b. Modality. In Semantics: an international handbook of contemporary research, ed. A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, 639–650. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Lewis, D.K. 1975. Adverbs of quantification. In Formal semantics of natural language, ed. E.L. Keenan, 3–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis D.K. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–359
Ludlow P. (1999). Semantics, tense, and time: an essay in the metaphysics of natural language. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Malle, B.F., and J. Knobe. 2001. The distinction between desire and intention: a folk-conceptual analysis. In Intentions and intentionality: foundations of social cognition , ed. B.F. Malle, L.J. Moses, and D.A. Baldwin, 45–67. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Palmer F.R. (1979). Modality and the English modals. Longman, London
Palmer F.R.(1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Recanati F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Recanati F. (2007). Perspectival thought: A plea for (moderate) relativism. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Sarkar A. (1998). The conflict between future tense and modality: the case of will in English. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 91–117
Smith C. (1978). The syntax and interpretation of temporal expressions in English. Linguistics and Philosophy 2: 43–99
Soames S. (1982). How presuppositions are inherited: a solution to the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 483–545
Sperber, D., and D. Wilson. 1981. Irony and the use-mention distinction. Radical pragmatics, ed. P. Cole, 295–318. New York: Academic Press.
Sperber D., Wilson D. (1995). Relevance: communication and cognition, Second edition. Blackwell, Oxford
Stalnaker R.C. (1999). Context and content. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Stalnaker R.C. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721
Stanley J. (2000). Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 391–434
Sweetser E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Tasmowski, L., and P. Dendale. 1998. Must/will and doit/future simple as epistemic modal markers. In English as a human language: To honour Louis Goossens, ed. L. Goossens, J.v.d. Auwera, F. Durieux, and L. Lejeune, 325–336. Munich: LINCOM Europa.
von Fintel, K. 2000. What is presupposition accommodation? Manuscript, MIT.
von Fintel, K., and A.S. Gillies. (forthcoming). An opinionated guide to epistemic modality. In Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Vol. 2, ed. T. Szabó Gendler and J. Hawthorne. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yavas F. (1982). Future reference in Turkish. Linguistics 20: 411–429
Ziegeler D. (2006). Omnitemporal will. Language Sciences 28: 76–119
Zimmermann T.E. (1999). Scepticism de se. Erkenntnis 51: 267–275
Zimmermann T.E. (2000). Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8: 255–290
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
I’m extremely grateful to Marc Dominicy for his valuable remarks on earlier drafts. Detailed and penetrating comments by two anonymous referees helped me to improve this paper considerably. Parts of this work have been presented at the Chronos VII conference in Antwerp; I’m grateful to members of the audience for questions and remarks. My research is funded by a research fellow grant from the Fonds National de Recherche Scientifique (FNRS), Communauté Française de Belgique.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kissine, M. Why will is not a modal. Nat Lang Semantics 16, 129–155 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-008-9028-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-008-9028-0