On modal tenses and tensed modals - UMR 7023 - CNRS

Conceiving of MOD-T as a forward expanding open interval [t, _)
helps capture the fact that temporal orientation is NON-PAST in modal
environments, but it does not contribute much to explain the correlation in
(12). The crucial question concerning temporal orientation is why states are
simultaneous to the initial boundary of MOD-T (the time from which the
modal base is accessed) if nothing else intervenes, whereas eventives cannot
be simultaneous, but only follow it.
Phenomena of aspectual-class driven temporal location involving a
difference between states and eventives have been extensively explored both
in discourse (see for instance Kamp & Reyle 1993) and in the study of
tenseless languages (see Smith 2008). The general simultaneity requirement
for states can be derived from a crucial property of their temporal structure:
they are totally homogeneous situations, lacking endpoints. Since their initial
or final transitions are not part of their temporal structure (Smith 1991), they
are not available for temporal location. Furthermore, because of their
temporal homogeneity, states can be evaluated at points in time (Dowty
1979). As a result, states will have a default “present” orientation. Eventives,
by contrast, are not totally homogeneous and their temporal structure has
endpoints. Since they involve change, they cannot be evaluated at points in
time (Dowty 1979). This is the source of the Bounded Event Constraint,
which excludes a “present” orientation for eventives (Smith 2008). In a
NON-PAST environment, such as is contributed by a modal verb, but also
by the present tense in (11a) or by the attitude verb in (11b), the only
available possibility for eventives is thus “future” orientation.
In English, the Bounded Event Constraint holds for all nonaspectualised
eventives, unless they can be understood as habituals/generics,
i.e. as derived states. Eventives in the progressive (cf. (7a-b) above) behave
as states. Whether the progressive is interpreted as changing the temporal
structure of the eventuality by providing a derived state, or as the expression
of a viewpoint aspect excluding the initial and final endpoints of the
eventuality, while entailing their initial transition (Smith 1991), the resulting
structure is the same: a lack of endpoints that will result in a default “present”
orientation. The same reasoning can be extended to perfect infinitives (cf. 8a
–b) above), if they are held to contribute the post-state of an eventuality: the
post-state will have a default “present” orientation, and the described
eventuality will, as a consequence, strictly precede the anchor.
The pattern in (12a-b) is also detectable in Spanish and French, but
with one significant difference. The temporal orientation of states is, as in
English, by default “present”, and the temporal orientation of achievements is
uniformly “future”. But it seems possible, and much easier in French than in
Spanish, to get a “present” orientation for atelic eventive predicates, such as
activities (and those accomplishments that might be reinterpreted as
activities). This is illustrated in (13a-b) and (14a-b) by the contrast between
8