13.07.2015 Views

Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

Aspect in Ancient Greek - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

144 Chapter 6. The temporal structure of discourseOn the push<strong>in</strong>g account, on the other hand, t 5 b<strong>in</strong>ds by default to t 3 (rule2a):(175) (171) ⊕ (173) =n e 1 t 1 t 2 t 3 e 2 t 4 t 6p enter(e 1 )τ(e 1 ) = t 1t 1 ⊆ t 2t 1 ⊃≺ t 3t 2 ≺ nm phone(e 2 )τ(e 2 ) = t 4t 4 ⊆ t 5t 4 ⊃≺ t 6t 5t 5 ≺ nt 5 := t 3⇒n e 1 t 1 t 2 t 3 e 2 t 4 t 6p enter(e 1 )τ(e 1 ) = t 1t 1 ⊆ t 2t 1 ⊃≺ t 3t 2 ≺ nm phone(e 2 )τ(e 2 ) = t 4t 4 ⊆ t 3t 4 ⊃≺ t 6t 3 ≺ nThe reader may check himself that <strong>in</strong> both ways we obta<strong>in</strong> the desired resultthat the telephon<strong>in</strong>g (e 2 ) follows the enter<strong>in</strong>g (e 1 ).We could say that on a push<strong>in</strong>g account this ρ is always the identity relation.I prefer this over a resolution of ρ to various temporal relations, whathappens on a pull<strong>in</strong>g account, because I th<strong>in</strong>k it’s conceptually clearer. Thepo<strong>in</strong>t is that if the resolution options of ρ are not restricted the relation is toopermissive. A restriction to ≺ and ⊆, however, or any temporal relation, isjust a stipulation. Moreover, we would expect that the default resolution <strong>for</strong>ρ is identity. Let me expla<strong>in</strong> this. The complex anaphoric condition of (172)is rem<strong>in</strong>iscent of Asher and Lascarides’ (1998) account of the phenomenon ofbridg<strong>in</strong>g. They def<strong>in</strong>e bridg<strong>in</strong>g as “an <strong>in</strong>ference that two objects or events thatare <strong>in</strong>troduced <strong>in</strong> a text are related <strong>in</strong> a particular way that isn’t explicitlystated, and yet the relation is an essential part of the content of the text <strong>in</strong>the sense that without this <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation, the lack of connection between thesentences would make the text <strong>in</strong>coherent” (p. 83). Let me illustrate this with(176):(176) I took my car <strong>for</strong> a test drive. The eng<strong>in</strong>e made a weird noise.The def<strong>in</strong>ite description the eng<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>troduces the <strong>in</strong>struction to pick up apreviously <strong>in</strong>troduced eng<strong>in</strong>e. The context doesn’t supply one explicitly. However,the hearer makes the <strong>in</strong>ference that the eng<strong>in</strong>e spoken of <strong>in</strong> the secondsentence is the eng<strong>in</strong>e of the car mentioned <strong>in</strong> the first sentence. On Asherand Lascarides’s account of this phenomenon, a def<strong>in</strong>ite description <strong>in</strong>troducesa discourse marker that has to be l<strong>in</strong>ked to a previously <strong>in</strong>troduced discourse

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!