Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:08:42.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discourse properties of now 1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2015

EUNHEE LEE
EUNHEE LEE*
Affiliation:
University at Buffalo
*
Author’s address: Baldy Hall 605, Department of Linguistics, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA ehlee@buffalo.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper proposes an updated analysis of the uses of now to modify past-tense clauses in narratives. It is by now well known that indexical expressions such as now are not as rigid as previously thought and can shift in some contexts (e.g. a literary style like Free Indirect Discourse in English or under report verbs in some languages). What is interesting about shifted now is that its distribution is much broader than these limited contexts. The conditions under which it can shift, however, are unclear and still under debate. Many recent proposals have tried to derive this property from the lexical meaning of now, thus treating it as a special case. Unlike previous analyses, I argue that the temporal perspective shift and temporal relations are functions of narrative discourse itself rather than the lexical semantics of now. The lexical meaning of now, I contend, is that it refers to a contextually salient time, regardless of whether it derives from actual speech context or discourse context. In addition, now invariably indicates a change of state, denoting the turning point dividing the past and the future seen from this contextually salient time. My claim is based on a quantitative study of naturally occurring narrative examples from the British National Corpus, and formalized in the discourse-level formal framework of Discourse Representation Theory.

Keywords

Discourse Representation Theorynarrative discoursenow in past tense clausesperspective shift
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , 01 August 2017 , pp. 613 - 640
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

I thank the editor and the three anonymous referees of the Journal of Linguistics for their valuable comments on earlier versions of the paper. I also thank Mark Nathan for editing the paper.

References

Abbott, H. Porter. 2008. The Cambridge introduction to narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altshuler, Daniel. 2010. Meaning of ‘now’ and other temporal location adverbs. In Aloni, Maria, Bastiaanse, Harald, de Jager, Tikitu & Schulz, Katrin (eds.), Logic, Language and Meaning: 17th Amsterdam Colloquium, revised selected papers, 183–192. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Anand, Pranav & Nevins, Andrew. 2004. Shifty operators in changing contexts: Indexicals in Zazaki and Slave. In Watanabe, Ken & Young, Robert B. (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 14, 20–37. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Asher, Nicholas & Lascarides, Alex. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Banfield, Ann. 1982. Unspeakable sentences. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Brennan, Jonathan & Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Processing events: Behavioral and neuromagnetic correlates of aspectual coercion. Brain & Language 106, 132–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caenepeel, Mimo. 1995. Aspect and text structure. Linguistics 33, 213–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caenepeel, Mimo & Moens, Marc. 1994. Temporal structure and discourse structure. In Vet, Co & Vetters, Carl (eds.), Tense and aspect in discourse, 5–20. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Caenepeel, Mimo & Sandström, Görel. 1992. A discourse-level approach to the past perfect in narrative. In Aurnague, Michel, Borillo, Andrée, Borillo, Mario & Bras, Myriam (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th European Workshop on Semantics of Time, Space, and Movement and Spatio-temporal Reasoning, 167–181. Toulouse: Université Paul Sabatier.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Chatman, Seymour. 1980. Story and discourse: Narrative structure in fiction and film. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Dahlgren, Katheleen, McDowell, Joyce & Stabler, Edward. 1989. Knowledge representation for commonsense reasoning with text. Computational Linguistics 15, 149–170.Google Scholar
De Swart, Henriëtte. 1998. Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16, 347–385.Google Scholar
Dölling, Johannes. 2014. Aspectual coercion and eventuality structure. In Robering, Klaus (ed.), Aspects, phases, and arguments: Topics in the semantics of verbs, 189–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Doron, Edit. 1991. Point of view as a factor of content. In Moore, Steven K. & Wyner, Adam Zachary (eds.), Proceedings of SALT, vol. I, 51–64. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1986. The effects of aspectual class on the temporal structure of discourse: Semantics or pragmatics? Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 37–61.Google Scholar
Dry, Helen. 1983. The movement of narrative time. Journal of Literary Semantics 12, 19–53.Google Scholar
Egg, Markus. 2005. Flexible semantics for reinterpretation phenomena. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Erhard. 1986. Temporal anaphora in discourse in English. Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 63–82.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1979. Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In Givón, Talmy (ed.), Discourse and syntax (Syntax and Semantics 12), 213–241. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hunter, Julie. 2010. Presuppositional indexicals. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Hunter, Julie. 2012. Now: A discourse-based theory. In Aloni, Maria, Kimmelman, Vadim, Roelofsen, Floris, Sassoon, Galit W., Schulz, Katrin & Westera, Matthijs (eds.), Logic, Language and Meaning: 18th Amsterdam Colloquium, revised selected papers, 371–380. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The architecture of language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Reyle, Uwe. 1993. From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Rohrer, Christian. 1983. Tense in texts. In Bäuerle, Rainer, Schwarze, Christoph & von Stechow, Armin (eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, 250–269. Berlin: De Gruyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse, and empathy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Language in the inner city. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William & Waletzky, Joshua. 1967. Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In Helm, June (ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts, 12–44. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. [Reprinted in 1997, Journal of Narrative and Life History 7, 1–38.]Google Scholar
Lascarides, Alex & Asher, Nichoals. 1993. Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy 16, 437–493.Google Scholar
Lascarides, Alex & Asher, Nicholas. 2007. Segmented Discourse Representation Theory: Dynamic semantics with discourse structure. In Bunt, Harry & Muskens, Richard (eds.), Computing meaning, vol. 3, 87–124. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Lee, EunHee. 2008. Aspectual and focus adverbs in English and Korean. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26, 339–358.Google Scholar
Lee, EunHee. 2010. Pluperfects in Korean and English discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 766–780.Google Scholar
Lee, EunHee & Choi, Jeongmi. 2009. Two nows in Korean. Journal of Semantics 26, 87–107.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2012. Progressive and continuous aspect. In Binnick, Robert I. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect, 803–827. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moens, Marc & Steedman, Mark. 1988. Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics 14, 15–28.Google Scholar
Oshima, David. 2006. Perspective in reported discourse. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1984. Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 7, 243–286.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, Franc¸ois. 2004. Indexicality and context shift. Presented at the Workshop on Indexicals, Speech Acts and Logophors, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1967. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1984. Principles of gestalt perception in the temporal organization of narrative texts. Linguistics 22, 779–809.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Phillip. 2003. A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26, 29–120.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Phillip. 2004. Context of thought and context of utterance (a note on Free Indirect Discourse and the historical present). Mind and Language 19, 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharvit, Yael. 2008. The puzzle of free indirect discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 31, 353–395.Google Scholar
Smessaert, Hans & ter Meulen, Alice G. B.. 2004. Temporal reasoning with aspectual adverbs. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 209–261.Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret. 2000. Person and point of view in Navajo verbs. In Carnie, Andrew, Jelinek, Eloise & Willie, Mary (eds.), Papers in honor of Ken Hale (MIT Working Papers in Endangered and Less Familiar Languages 1), 19–38. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
van Eijck, Jan & Kamp, Hans. 1997. Representing discourse in context. In van Benthem, Jan & ter Meulen, Alice G. B. (eds.), Handbook of logic and language, 181–237. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Webber, Bonnie. 1988. Tense as discourse anaphor. Computational Linguistics 14, 61–73.Google Scholar