Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.Modality.Studies.Hacquard2006

Event Projection → Temporal Orientation #

@cite{hacquard-2006} @cite{hacquard-2010} @cite{condoravdi-2002} @cite{kratzer-2012}Derives the temporal orientation of modals from event projection. High modals get the speech time (present perspective); low modals get the event time (past perspective).

The Pattern #

PositionEvent binderholder(e)τ(e)Temporal orientation
High (above Asp)speech act e₀speakerspeech time (now)Present
Low (below Asp)VP event e₂agentevent time (then)Past/event-local

Hacquard's Derivation #

Individual-time pairs are DERIVED from events via projection functions holder(e) and τ(e). Since high modals bind to the speech event and low modals bind to the VP event, their temporal parameters differ:

This connects EventProjection (EventRelativity §11) to the temporal modal evaluation framework in Temporal.lean.

The temporal orientation of a modal: what time the modal's conversational background is evaluated at.

Instances For
    Equations
    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
    Instances For

      A time type for the orientation examples.

      • now : OTime

        Speech time (= utterance time)

      • then_ : OTime

        Past event time

      Instances For
        Equations
        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
        Instances For

          Two events: speech act and VP event.

          Instances For
            Equations
            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
            Instances For

              Individuals: speaker and the described event's agent.

              Instances For
                Equations
                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                Instances For

                  Event projection for the temporal orientation scenario. Speech events project to (speaker, now); VP events project to (agent, then).

                  Equations
                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                  Instances For

                    The same modal (devoir, pouvoir) has different temporal perspectives depending on its structural position — derived from event projection, not stipulated.

                    The temporal orientation derived from event projection connects to Temporal.lean's time-indexed conversational backgrounds.

                    When the modal binds to event e with τ(e) = t, the conversational background is evaluated at time t: f(w,t). The time IS the event's temporal trace. Event projection subsumes time-indexing: rather than stipulating which time to evaluate at, the time is projected from whichever event binds the modal.

                    (@cite{hacquard-2006}, (201)): two readings of the same sentence with different temporal perspectives, derived from event binding.

                    Epistemic (high): "Given MY evidence NOW, Jane must have taken the train." → modal bound to speech event → τ(e₀) = speech time = now → background evaluated at speech time

                    Root (low): "Given JANE'S circumstances THEN, Jane had to take the train." → modal bound to VP event → τ(e₂) = event time = then → background evaluated at event time

                    The full derivation chain for "Jane a dû prendre le train": event binding → event projection → temporal orientation.

                    This is the payoff of event-relative modality: the same modal gets different temporal perspectives from different event bindings, without any stipulation about temporal orientation.

                    Bridge content (merged from ActualityInferencesBridge.lean) #

                    Actuality Inference Data (Cross-Linguistic) #

                    @cite{bhatt-1999} @cite{hacquard-2006} @cite{nadathur-2023}

                    Cross-linguistic empirical data on actuality inferences with ability modals, following the pattern of Phenomena/Causation/Data.lean.

                    Key Generalization (@cite{nadathur-2023}, Chapter 1) #

                    Across languages, ability modals with perfective aspect entail the complement, while those with imperfective aspect do not.

                    LanguageModalPFV entails?IMPF entails?
                    GreekboroYesNo
                    HindisaknaaYesNo
                    FrenchpouvoirYesNo
                    Englishbe ableYes (episodic)No (habitual)

                    A single cross-linguistic data point for actuality inferences.

                    Instances For
                      Equations
                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                      Instances For
                        Equations
                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                        Instances For

                          Greek boro + perfective (aorist): "She was-able.PFV to swim across" → She swam across.

                          Equations
                          • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                          Instances For

                            Greek boro + imperfective: "She was-able.IMPF to swim across" ↛ She swam across.

                            Equations
                            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                            Instances For

                              Hindi saknaa + perfective: "She was-able.PFV to swim across" → She swam across.

                              Equations
                              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                              Instances For

                                Hindi saknaa + imperfective: "She was-able.IMPF to swim across" ↛ She swam across.

                                Equations
                                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                Instances For

                                  French pouvoir + passé composé (perfective): "She was-able.PFV to swim across" → She swam across.

                                  Equations
                                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                  Instances For

                                    French pouvoir + imparfait (imperfective): "She was-able.IMPF to swim across" ↛ She swam across.

                                    Equations
                                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                    Instances For

                                      English be able + episodic (perfective-like): "She was able to swim across" → She swam across.

                                      Equations
                                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                      Instances For

                                        English be able + habitual (imperfective-like): "She was able to swim across" ↛ She swam across on that occasion.

                                        Equations
                                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                        Instances For

                                          All actuality inference data points.

                                          Equations
                                          • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                          Instances For

                                            The perfective subset.

                                            Equations
                                            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                            Instances For

                                              The imperfective subset.

                                              Equations
                                              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                              Instances For

                                                Central empirical generalization: across all 8 data points, complementEntailed tracks aspect ==.perfective exactly.

                                                This is the empirical observation that @cite{nadathur-2023} explains via the causal sufficiency + aspect interaction.

                                                We have data from 4 distinct languages.

                                                Each language contributes exactly one perfective and one imperfective datum.

                                                Every datum's complementEntailed field matches the position × aspect prediction for root modals. All data involves root/ability modals (below AspP), so the prediction is actualityEntailmentPredicted.belowAsp d.aspect.

                                                This connects the theory-neutral empirical data (§§ above) to @cite{hacquard-2006}'s structural explanation: root modals are below Asp, so perfective forces actualization.