Tense : A temporal Argument

Several analyses have been proposed to account for tense phenomena. Traditionally, tense has been treated as a sentential operator as in Stowell (1981, 1982), or as a referential expression (for example Enç 1987), and as a temporal predicate (see, for example, Zagona 1993 and Stowell 1994, 1995). I will adopt a theory of tense which treats tense on a par with nominals, following Higginbotham (1985) and Enç (1987). Rejecting the traditional treatment of tenses as sentential operators in semantic theories, which is based on the idea that the tense of a sentence affects the temporal interpretation of all expressions in the sentence, and this in turn rests on the assumption that all expressions are interpreted relative to times, Enç (1986, 1987) shows that in a tensed clause verbs are the only expressions whose interpretation is necessarily affected by the tense, and that this point is obscured if one insists on semantically analyzing tenses as sentential operators. She argues that all predicates have one more argument than

previously assumed, e.g. she analyzes kiss as a three-place predicate, sleep and

president as two-place predicates, etc., and requires one of the arguments to come

from the temporal domain.

Drawing on Higginbotham (1985), we can restate the claim as follows: verbs as well as nominals have an open position in them. This is the position E(vent) of the thematic grid of the verb. The position E, or the E role corresponds to the

The emergence of TP

“hidden” argument place for events or situations. For example, the thematic

grid of the verb see is shown as < 1,2, E>. The position 1 and 2 will be the

thematic positions filled e.g. by John and Mary, that is, the usual thematic roles

like Agent or Theme. For a proposition to be interpretable at LF, this position E must be bound somehow, as a tense specification is necessary for a proposition to

be truth-evaluable (Higginbotham 1985, 554ff.). We call it the temporal

argument of VP. The phrase marker (4) of the sentence (3) is the following:

(3) John saw Mary.

(4) IP

/ \ NP

Inf] VP

NP

John +p see Mary

The sentence (3) is well-formed and true if and only if John saw Mary. In (4) +p

denotes the past-tense formative. Thus, (4) together with (8) illuminates the character of the E-role and shows that every verb has an E-role which must be bound in some way in order to obtain a well-formed semantics.

The referential treatment of tense is not new. Partee (1973) argues that tenses behave like pronouns. They can have antecedents in the discourse as in (5):

(5) Sheila had a party last Friday, and Sam got drunk. (Partee 1973, 605)

The time is specified in one clause, and the tense of a subsequent clause refers to the same time. The antecedent may be a time-clause as in (6):

The emergence of TP

(6) When Susan walked in, Peter left. (Partee 1973, 605)

Or the antecedent may be sentence internal, i.e. with a time adverbial as in (7);

(7) We climbed Mt. Baker three weeks ago. (Partee 1973, 604)

As Partee ( 1973, 604) says, the tense seems to be redundant in this sentence, since the time specification is provided by the time adverbial.

Following Higginbotham (1985), I assume that tense is treated like another referential argument. The referential arguments must be bound for reasons of interpretation and semantic well-formedness. In the case of VPs in PE, the binder of this E position is a syntactic functional category Tense or Infl. The position E of the thematic grid of the verb is discharged at the point where VP meets Infl, where T(ense) is located as shown below:

(8) IP<1*,2*, E*> / X DP r <1, 2*, E*> John I V P<1,2*,E> V’<1.2*,E> <1,2, E>V DP see Mary

The asterisk in the angle brackets indicates that the position closes or is discharged. Note that Higginbotham admits that stative verbs as well as verbs of change or action will also have E-positions (Higginbotham 1985, 555).

The emergence of TP

Theta binding takes place only under government^ that is, in the following configuration, according to Higginbotham;

CO [X A B ]

A B

A and B must be sisters. This is also stated in the conditions on theta binding of the E position (10) (cf. Zwarts 1992, 62):

(10) Theta binding

A functional head Infl theta-binds a lexical projection VP if and only if:

i. Infl and VP are sisters, and

ii. Infl is coindexed with the referential argument of VP.

Infl and VP must be sisters. A functional head cannot theta-bind a specifier or an adjunct.

Thus, I treat tense as a referential argument in parallel with D in DP. Tense is the temporal argument of a verb and is referential. This E-role can be bound syntactically (by a functional head T), or as we shall see immediately by alternative devices like aspect, time adverbials or verb morphology as in OE.

1 I assum e th e form al definition of governm ent: X governs Y if an d only if

(i) X is e ith er of th e category A, N, V, P, I; or

X an d Y are coindexed; (ii) X c-commands Y;

(hi) no b a rrie r in terv en es betw een X a n d Y; (iv) m inim ahty is respected.

The emergence of TP