@cite{rett-2020}: Antonymy + Aspectual Coercion #
@cite{rett-2020} @cite{rett-2026} @cite{jin-koenig-2021} @cite{krifka-2010b}before and after are antonyms on converse scales, with strong defaults @cite{de-swart-1998} @cite{dolling-2014} (before-start, after-finish). Non-default readings require aspectual coercion: INCHOAT (GLB, atelic → onset) or COMPLET (LUB, telic → telos), which incur processing cost.
Rett's formal analysis (eqs. 22a-b):
- ⟦A before B⟧ = ∃t ∈ A [t ≺ MAX(B_≺)]
- ⟦A after B⟧ = ∃t ∈ A [t ≻ MAX(B_≻)]
Both theories use ∃ over the main clause A: "some time in A bears the relation to (some characterization) B." They differ in how B's reference point is selected (all of B vs MAX of B).
Level #
Level 2 (interval sets): operates on SentDenotation directly, using
maxOnScale from Core.Scale to select the informative bound.
Bridges #
INCHOATextracts the same point asCoSType.inception(onset of a state)COMPLETextracts the dual: the finish point of a telic eventstativeDenotationhas the subinterval property (connects to Krifka CUM)- Both theories agree on unambiguous cases (stative before, telic after)
Ambidirectionality #
before is truth-conditionally insensitive to negation of its argument (ambidirectional), which is why it licenses expletive negation cross- linguistically. after and while are not ambidirectional.
Rett's before (eq. 22a): ∃t ∈ times(A) [t ≺ MAX(times(B)_≺)]. Some time in A precedes the maximal (on the ≺ scale) time of B.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Rett's after (eq. 22b): ∃t ∈ times(A) [t ≻ MAX(times(B)_≻)]. Some time in A succeeds the maximal (on the ≻ scale) time of B.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Inchoative coercion / GLB (@cite{rett-2020}, eq. 19; @cite{de-swart-1998}; @cite{dolling-2014}). Maps a process (atelic) denotation to a singleton containing its onset point. GLB(T) = ιt[t ∈ T ∧ ∀t' ∈ T, t ≤ t']
Linguistically: "Amy was surprised" → "the start of Amy being surprised". Cross-linguistically realized as inchoative morphology (Russian -sja, Tagalog PFV.NEUT).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Completive coercion / LUB (@cite{rett-2020}, eq. 21; @cite{dolling-2014}). Maps a culmination (telic) denotation to a singleton containing its telos. LUB(T) = ιt[t ∈ T ∧ ∀t' ∈ T, t ≥ t']
Linguistically: "Jane climbed the mountain" → "the moment Jane reached the top". Cross-linguistically realized as completive morphology (Tagalog AIA).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
INCHOAT extracts the start point of a stative denotation.
COMPLET extracts the finish point of an accomplishment denotation.
Both theories predict "before-start" for statives.
When B is stative (subinterval-closed), both theories reduce to "some time in A precedes all times in B":
- Anscombe directly: ∃ t ∈ A, ∀ t' ∈ B, t < t'
- Rett: ∃ t ∈ A, t < MAX(B_≺). For statives, MAX on ≺ picks B.start (the GLB), and t < B.start ↔ t < all times in B.
Rett's analysis implies Anscombe's for telic "after".
The converse does NOT hold: Anscombe.after only requires some point of B to precede some point of A (∃ t' ∈ B, t' < t), while Rett requires A to follow B's finish (t > MAX₍>₎(B) = i_B.finish). These differ when A overlaps B without extending past B's endpoint.
Rett's before implies Anscombe's before in general.
From Rett: t < m where m = min(timeTrace B). Since m < all other points in timeTrace B (by maxOnScale), t < every point in timeTrace B. This gives Anscombe's ∀-quantified conclusion.
Rett's after implies Anscombe's after in general.
Immediate: m ∈ maxOnScale(timeTrace B) implies m ∈ timeTrace B, and t > m gives the existential witness for Anscombe.after.
Expletive negation and ambidirectionality #
@cite{rett-2026} shows that before is ambidirectional: negating B in "A before B" doesn't change truth conditions. This is why before-clauses license expletive negation cross-linguistically (@cite{jin-koenig-2021}: 50 of 74 EN-attesting languages, from a 722-language survey).
The mechanism: for B = [s, f], both B and its pre-event complement (−∞, s] share s as their "most informative closed bound" on the < scale. The before construction relates A only to this bound, so negating B is truth-conditionally vacuous.
After is NOT ambidirectional: negating B shifts the relevant bound. While requires total temporal overlap; ¬B fails when A overlaps B.
Before truth conditions depend only on MAX₍<₎ of B's time trace.
When B's time trace is a closed interval [s, f], Rett.before reduces to "∃ t ∈ A, t < s".
COMPLET on a stative denotation extracts the finish point.
The pre-event complement of an event interval [s, f].
Equations
- Semantics.Tense.TemporalConnectives.preEventDenotation bot i hbot = Semantics.Tense.TemporalConnectives.stativeDenotation { start := bot, finish := i.start, valid := hbot }
Instances For
The time trace of a stative denotation is the closed interval [start, finish].
MAX₍<₎ of a stative denotation's time trace is {start}.
The time trace of COMPLET(preEventDenotation bot i) is the degenerate
interval {i.start}.
MAX₍<₎ of the COMPLET of a pre-event denotation is {start}.
Before is truth-conditionally insensitive to event polarity.
Both select the same boundary point s through different mechanisms: the original uses the default before-start reading (MAX₍<₎), while the negated version requires COMPLET coercion to extract the end of the pre-event interval.
After is NOT ambidirectional: negating B changes truth conditions because MAX₍>₎(B) ≠ MAX₍>₎(¬B).
While is not ambidirectional.