Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T08:50:30.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards a theory of modal-temporal interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Hotze Rullmann and
Lisa Matthewson
Hotze Rullmann*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Lisa Matthewson*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
*
Department of Linguistics, University of British Columbia, Totem Field Studios, 2613 West Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada [hotze.rullmann@ubc.ca]
[lisa.matthewson@ubc.ca]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A compositional analysis is provided of temporal perspective and orientation (Condoravdi 2002) of modals in Dutch, English, Gitksan (Tsimshianic), and St‘át'imcets (Lillooet Salish). Modals interact freely with the tense-aspect architecture in each language. Temporal perspective is determined by an operator scoping over the modal, usually tense, while temporal orientation is determined by aspectual operators below it (and further restricted by the diversity condition). In contrast to much of the literature, it is argued that epistemic modals can scope under past tense. Modal-temporal interactions behave in predictable ways in Dutch, Gitksan, and St‘át'imcets, whereas the English system is more idiosyncratic and partly lexicalized.

Keywords

modalstenseaspectepistemicGitksanSt'át'imcetsDutch

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 94 , Issue 2 , June 2018, pp. 281 - 331
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

We are very grateful to our St'át'imcets consultants Carl Alexander, the late Beverley Frank, the late Gertrude Ned, Laura Thevarge, and the late Rose Agnes Whitley—kukwstum'ckál'ap!—and to our Gitksan consultants Vincent Gogag, Hector Hill, and Barbara Sennott—ha'miiyaa!

Earlier versions of (parts of) this article were presented at the UBC Modality Seminar (2011–2012), the Modality@OttawaU Workshop (2012), UC Santa Cruz (2012), the Texas Linguistic Society (2012), the Linguistics and Philosophy Editors Workshop, Goethe University, Frankfurt (2013), UCLA (2014), the UBC ‘Tense and Aspect in the Pacific’ lab (2016), the Berkeley Meaning Sciences Workshop (2016), and Georgetown University (2016). We would like to thank the audience members on those occasions for all of their comments and questions.

Many thanks are also due to the following individuals for detailed discussion and feedback on various aspects of the paper: Pranav Anand, Ana Arregui, Sihwei Chen, Cleo Condoravdi, Henry Davis, Valentine Hacquard, Thomas J. Heins, Vera Hohaus, Angelika Kratzer, Rebecca Laturnus, Meagan Louie, Elise McClay, Rob Pasternak, Paul Portner, Ori Simchen, Tim Stowell, Claire Turner, Jozina Vander Klok, and Igor Yanovich. We are also grateful for helpful feedback to Chris Kennedy and two anonymous referees.

This research was funded in part by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (grants #410-2011-0431 and #435-2016-0381) and the Jacobs Research Fund of the Whatcom Museum.

References

Abusch, Dorit. 1985. on verbs and time. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Abusch, Dorit. 1997. Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy 20. 1–50. DOI: 10.1023/A:1005331423820.10.1023/A:1005331423820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abusch, Dorit. 2012. Circumstantial and temporal dependence in counterfactual modals. Natural language Semantics 20. 273-97. DOI: 10.1007/s11050-012-9082-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altshuler, Daniel, and Schwarzschild, Roger. 2013. Moment of change, cessation implicatures and simultaneous readings. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17. 45–62. Online: https://semanticsarchive.net/sub2012/AltshulerSchwarzschild.pdf.Google Scholar
Arregui, Ana. 2005. on the accessibility of possible worlds: The role of tense and aspect. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Banfield, Ann. 1982. Unspeakable sentences: Narration and representation in the language of fiction. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bennett, Michael, and Partee, Barbara H.. 1978. Toward the logic of tense and aspect in English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. [Reprinted in Compositionality in formal semantics: Selected papers by Barbara H. Partee, 59–109. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.].Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 1999. Covert modality in non-finite contexts. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Bochnak, Ryan M. 2016. Past time reference in a language with optional tense. linguistics and Philosophy 39. 247-94. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-016-9191-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen. 2014. Aspect vs. relative tense: The case reopened. Natural language and linguistic Theory 32. 917-54. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-013-9210-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boogaart, Ronny. 2007. The past and perfect of epistemic modals. Recent advances in the syntax and semantics of tense, aspect and modality, ed. by Saussure, Louis de, Moeschler, Jacques, and Puskas, Genoveva, 47–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgonovo, Claudia, and Cummins, Sarah. 2007. Tensed modals. Coreference, modality, and focus, ed. by Eguren, Luis and Soriano, Olga Fernández, 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brennan, Virginia. 1993. Root and epistemic modal auxiliary verbs. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Burton, Strang, and Matthewson, Lisa. 2015. Targeted construction storyboards in semantic fieldwork. Semantic fieldwork methodology, ed. by Bochnak, Ryan and Matthewson, Lisa, 135-56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Sihwei, Hohaus, Vera, Laturnus, Rebecca, Louie, Meagan, Matthewson, Lisa, Rullmann, Hotze, Simchen, Ori, Turner, Claire K.; and Klok, Jozina Vander. 2017. Past possibility cross-linguistically: Evidence from 12 languages. Modality across syntactic categories, ed. by Arregui, Ana, Rivero, María-Luisa, and Salanova, Andrés, 236-87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783112316009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195115260.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo. 2002. Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and the past. The construction of meaning, ed. by Beaver, David, Martinez, Luis Casillas, Clark, Brady, and Kaufmann, Stefan, 59–88. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Copley, Bridget. 2006. What should should mean? Paris: Université Paris 8/CNRS, ms.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008–2015. Corpus of contemporary American English: 520 million words, 1990–2015. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. Online: http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry. 2010. A teacher's grammar of Upper St'át'imcets. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, ms.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry, Louie, Meagan, Matthewson, Lisa, Paul, Ileana, Silva, Amélia Reis; and Peterson, Tyler. 2010. Perfective aspect and actuality entailments: A cross-linguistic approach. Proceedings of Semantics of Under-Represented Languages in the Americas (SULA) 5. 17–32.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry, Matthewson, Lisa; and Rullmann, Hotze. 2009. Out of control marking as circumstantial modality in St'át'imcets. Cross-linguistic semantics of tense, aspect and modality, ed. by Hogeweg, Lotte, Hoop, Helen de, and Malchukov, Andrej, 206-44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen, and Lestrade, Sander. 2015. Modality in Lolita. Modern approaches to narratives: Texts, transmissions, receptions, ed. by André, Lardinois, Levie, Sophie, Hoeken, Hans, and Luthy, Christoph, 97–113. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vuyst, Jan. 1985. The present perfect in Dutch and English. Journal of Semantics 4. 137-63. DOI: 10.1093/jos/4.2.137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demirdache, Hamida, and Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam. 2008a. Scope and anaphora with time arguments: The case of ‘perfect modals’. lingua 118. 1790–1815. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.08.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demirdache, Hamida, and Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam. 2008b. On the temporal syntax of non-root modals. Time and modality, ed. by Guéron, Jacqueline and Lecarme, Jacqueline, 79–113. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-8354-9_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, David. 1992. Counterfactual may have. Internal and external factors in syntactic change, ed. by Gerritsen, Marinel and Stein, Dieter, 229-56. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Doron, Edit. 1991. Point of view as a factor of content. Proceedings of Semantics and linguistic Theory (SALT) 1. 51–64. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v1i0.2997.10.3765/salt.v1i0.2997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1986. The effects of aspectual class on the temporal structure of discourse: Semantics or pragmatics? Linguistics and Philosophy 9. 37–61. DOI: 10.1007/BF00627434.10.1007/BF00627434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drubig, Hans. 2001. On the syntactic form of epistemic modality. Tübingen: Eberhard Karls Universität, ms.Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine. 2015. The semantics of free indirect discourse. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004266735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eide, Kristin. 2003. Modals and tense. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 7. 120-35. Online: http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/conferences/sub7/proceedings/download/sub7_eide.pdf.Google Scholar
Eide, Kristin. 2005. Norwegian modals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1996. Tense and modality. The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. by Lappin, Shalom, 345-58. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fagan, Sarah M. B. 2001. Epistemic modality and tense in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 13. 197–230.10.1017/S1470542701035012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fălăuş, Anamaria, and Laca, Brenda. 2016. Modal-temporal interactions. Paris: Université de Nantes/Université Paris 8, ms. [To appear in The Wiley-Blackwell companion to semantics, ed. by Lisa Matthewson, Cécile Meier, Hotze Rullmann, and Thomas Ede Zimmermann. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
First Peoples' Cultural Council. 2014. Report on the status of B.C. First Nations languages 2014. 2nd edn. Brentwood Bay, BC: FPCC. Online: http://www.fpcc.ca/files/PDF/Language/FPCC-LanguageReport-141016-WEB.pdf.Google Scholar
Foolen, Ad, and Hoop, Helen de. 2009. Conflicting constraints on the interpretation of modal auxiliaries. Cross-linguistic semantics of tense, aspect and modality, ed. by Hogeweg, Lotte, Hoop, Helen de, and Malchukov, Andrej, 303-16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Geerts, Guido, Haeseryn, Walter, Rooij, Jaap de; and van den Toorn, Maarten C. (eds.) 1984. Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia, and Mari, Alda. 2016. Epistemic future and epistemic must: Nonveridicality, evidence, and partial knowledge. Mood, aspect, modality revisited: New answers to old questions, ed. by Blaszczak, Joanna, Giannakidou, Anastasia, Klimek-Jankowska, Dorota, and Mygdalski, Krzysztof, 75–117. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glougie, Jennifer. 2007. Aspect in St'át'imcets future expressions. International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages 42. 220-35. Online: https://lingpapers.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2018/02/Glougie_2007.pdf.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Stokhof, Martin. 1975. Modality and conversational information. Theoretical Linguistics 2. 61–112. DOI: 10.1515/thli.1975.2.1-3.61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2006. Aspects of modality. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2010. On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries. Natural language Semantics 18. 79–114. DOI: 10.1007/s11050-010-9056-4.10.1007/s11050-010-9056-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2011. Modality. Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, ed. by Maienborn, Claudia, Heusinger, Klaus von, and Portner, Paul, 1484–1515. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2013. The grammatical category of modality. Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, 19–26.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1994. Comments on Abusch's theory of tense. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Homer, Vincent. 2010. Epistemic modals: High ma non troppo. North East linguistic Society (NELS) 40. 273-86.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, and Pullum, Geoffrey (eds.) 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huitink, Janneke. 2008. Scoping over epistemics in English and Dutch. Current issues in unity and diversity of languages: Collection of the papers selected from the CIl 18, held at Korea University in Seoul, on July 21–26, 2008, 2077-89.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 1990. The past, the possible, and the evident. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 123-29. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178663.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 231-70. DOI: 10.1162/002438900554352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ippolito, Michela. 2003. Presuppositions and implicatures in counterfactuals. Natural Language Semantics 11. 145-86. DOI: 10.1023/A:1024411924818.10.1023/A:1024411924818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jóhannsdóttir, Kristin, and Matthewson, Lisa. 2007. Zero-marked tense: The case of Gitxsan. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 37. 299–310.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Stefan. 2005. Conditional truth and future reference. Journal of Semantics 22. 231-80. DOI: 10.1093/jos/ffh025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klecha, Peter. 2016. Modality and embedded temporal operators. Semantics and Pragmatics 9:9. DOI: 10.3765/sp.9.9.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. Words, worlds, and contexts, ed. by Eikemeyer, Hans-Jürgen and Rieser, Hannes, 38–74. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, ed. by Stechow, Arnim von and Wunderlich, Dieter, 639-50. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 8. 92–110. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v8i0.2808.10.3765/salt.v8i0.2808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Context and content. Lectures presented at Institut Nicod, Paris, November 2009.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2011. What ‘can’ can mean. Lecture notes, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, February 2011.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. Events and grammar, ed. by Rothstein, Susan, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laca, Brenda. 2008. On modal tenses and tensed modals. Paris: Université Paris 8/CNRS, ms.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter. 2005. Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28. 643-86. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-005-0596-x.10.1007/s10988-005-0596-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liao, Wei-Wen. 2005. Aspectual structure and the syntax of Chinese durative phrases. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University MA thesis.Google Scholar
Louie, Meagan. 2015. The temporal semantics of actions and circumstance in Blackfoot. Vancouver: University of British Columbia dissertation.Google Scholar
Mari, Alda. 2010. Temporal reasoning and modality. Paper presented at the Temporality: Typology and Acquisition workshop, Université Paris 8.Google Scholar
Martin, Fabienne. 2011. Epistemic modals in the past. Romance languages and linguistic theory 2009: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’, Nice 2009, ed. by Berns, Janine, Jacobs, Haike, and Scheer, Tobias, 185–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/rllt.3.11marCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2004. On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American linguistics 70. 369–415. DOI: 10.1086/429207.10.1086/429207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2005. When I was small—I wan kwikws: A grammatical analysis of St'át'imcets oral narratives. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2006. Temporal semantics in a superficially tenseless language. linguistics and Philosophy 29. 673–713. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-006-9010-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2012. On the (non-)future orientation of modals. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16. 431-46. Online: http://mitwpl.mit.edu/open/sub16/Matthewson.pdf.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2013. Gitksan modals. International Journal of American linguistics 79. 349-94. DOI: 10.1086/670751.10.1086/670751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa, and Davis, Henry. 2016. Against all expectations: The meaning of St'át'imcets séna7. International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring languages 51. 37–67. Online: http://linguistics.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2016/08/ICSNL2016-fullonline.pdf.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa, Davis, Henry; and Rullmann, Hotze. 2007. Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St'át'imcets. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7. 201-54. DOI: 10.1075/livy.7.07mat.10.1075/livy.7.07matCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1971. Tense and reference in English. Studies in linguistic semantics, ed. by Fillmore, Charles J. and Langendoen, D. Terence, 96–113. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 1995. The semantics of tense in embedded clauses. linguistic Inquiry 26. 663-79. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178918.Google Scholar
Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 1996. Tense, attitudes, and scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-015-8609-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pancheva, Roumyana. 2003. The aspectual makeup of perfect participles and the interpretations of the perfect. Perfect explorations, ed. by Alexiadou, Artemis, Rathert, Monika, and Stechow, Arnim von, 277–306. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1973. Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy 70. 601–9. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2025024.10.2307/2025024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasternak, Robert. 2016. The illusory scope of French epistemics. Poster presented at the 40th Penn Linguistics Conference, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Peterson, Tyler. 2010. Epistemic modality and evidentiality in Gitksan at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Vancouver: University of British Columbia dissertation.Google Scholar
Picallo, M. Carme. 1990. Modal verbs in Catalan. Natural language and linguistic Theory 8. 285–312. DOI: 10.1007/BF00208525.10.1007/BF00208525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2009. Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2011. Perfect and progressive. Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, ed. by Maienborn, Claudia, Heusinger, Klaus von, and Portner, Paul, 1217-61. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Rigsby, Bruce J. 1986. Gitksan grammar. Brisbane: University of Queensland, ms.Google Scholar
Rullmann, Hotze, Matthewson, Lisa; and Davis, Henry. 2008. Modals as distributive indefinites. Natural language Semantics 16. 317-57. DOI: 10.1007/s11050-008-9036-0.10.1007/s11050-008-9036-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sbardolini, Giorgio. 2016. An Aristotelian theory of modality. Columbus: The Ohio State University, ms.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2004. Context of thought and context of utterance: A note on free indirect discourse and the historical present. Mind & language 19. 279–304. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2004.00259.x.10.1111/j.1468-0017.2004.00259.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharvit, Yael. 2008. The puzzle of free indirect discourse. linguistics and Philosophy 31. 353-95. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-008-9039-9.10.1007/s10988-008-9039-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soare, Elena. 2009. Epistemic modality in Romanian: The role of BE. STil studies in linguistics, vol. 3: Proceedings XXXV Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, 244-57. Online: http://www.diacronia.ro/ro/indexing/details/A22700/pdf.Google Scholar
Stephenson, Tamina. 2007. Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. linguistics and Philosophy 30. 487–525. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-008-9023-4.10.1007/s10988-008-9023-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowell, Timothy. 2004. Tense and modals. The syntax of time, ed. by Guéron, Jacqueline and Lecarme, Jacqueline, 621-36. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, Guillaume. 2014. Circumstantial modality and the diversity condition. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18. 433-50. Online: https://semanticsarchive.net/sub2013/SeparateArticles/Thomas.pdf.Google Scholar
Toews, Carmela. 2015. Topics in Siamou tense and aspect. Vancouver: University of British Columbia dissertation.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith, and Matthewson, Lisa. 2016. Empirical evidence in research on meaning. Columbus: The Ohio State University, and Vancouver: University of British Columbia, ms.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
van Eijk, Jan. 1997. The Lillooet language: Phonology, morphology, syntax. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
van Gerrevink, Richard, and Hoop, Helen de. 2011. On the interaction of tense, aspect and modality in Dutch. Bidirectional optimality theory, ed. by Benz, Anton and Mattausch, Jason, 151-68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vander Klok, Jozina, and Matthewson, Lisa. 2015. Distinguishing already from perfect aspect: A case study on Javanese wis. Oceanic Linguistics 54. 172–205. DOI: 10.1353/ol.2015.0007.10.1353/ol.2015.0007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, Kai, and Gillies, Anthony S.. 2008. CIA leaks. Philosophical Review 117. 77–98. DOI: 10.1215/00318108-2007-025.10.1215/00318108-2007-025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, Kai, and Heim, Irene. 2011. Intensional semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms. Online: http://web.mit.edu/fintel/fintel-heim-intensional.pdf.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai, and Iatridou, Sabine. 2003. Epistemic containment. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 173-98. DOI: 10.1162/002438903321663370.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai, and Iatridou, Sabine. 2008. How to say ought in foreign: The composition of weak necessity modals. Time and modality, ed. by Guéron, Jacqueline and Lecarme, Jacqueline, 115-41. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 1995. On the proper treatment of tense. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 5. 362-86. DOI: 10.3765/salt.v5i0.2700.Google Scholar
Werner, Thomas. 2003. Deducing the future and distinguishing the past: Temporal interpretation in modal sentences in English. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University dissertation.Google Scholar
Werner, Thomas. 2006. Future and non-future modal sentences. Natural Language Semantics 14. 235-55. DOI: 10.1007/s11050-006-9001-8.Google Scholar