Language & Linguistics Compass

doi: 10.1111/lnc3.12287pmid: N/A

No abstract is available for this article.

Bochnak, M. Ryan

doi: 10.1111/lnc3.12307pmid: N/A

The nature of future temporal reference has long posed a challenge to linguistic theories of temporal interpretation. On the one hand, the future would seem to be the mirror image of the past on a linear timeline. On the other hand, the future is inherently non‐factual, suggesting a modal analysis of the future that is non‐symmetrical with the past and the present. Cross‐linguistic studies of temporal reference have furthermore uncovered much variation in the strategies used to express future interpretation, and this variation cross‐cuts the tensed/tenseless language divide. This article focuses on two aspects of future interpretation: (a) the semantics of future markers and the division of labor between the temporal and modal semantics encoded in them and (b) the availability of future interpretations without overt future morphology. The cross‐linguistic picture suggests that a modal treatment of the future may be a semantic universal, though certain cases that appear to challenge this generalization will be discussed and require future research.

Uegaki, Wataru

doi: 10.1111/lnc3.12308pmid: N/A

The complementation pattern of certain question‐embedding predicates, such as know and agree, presents a puzzle for the compositional semantics of clausal complementation, as the predicates seem to be able to combine with two distinct types of semantic objects: propositions and questions. The traditional approach to the semantics of these predicates, where embedded questions are reduced to propositions, faces two problems. First, it cannot account for the observation that know‐wh sentences require the subject not to believe any false answer to the embedded question. Second, it makes a problematic prediction concerning the interpretation of Predicates of Relevance, such as care and matter. We review three alternative approaches to the semantics of question‐embedding predicates, i.e., the proposition‐to‐question reduction, the uniform approach and the ambiguity approach, and argue that only the Proposition‐to‐Question reduction and the uniform approach can deal with the interpretation of the Predicates of Relevance. The paper concludes with a remark on how lexical denotations of question‐embedding predicates are constrained in general.