A Semantics and Pragmatics for the Pluperfect

A Semantics and Pragmatics for the Pluperfect Alex Lascarides* Centre for Cognitive Science and Human Communication Research Centre University of Edinburgh 2, Buccleuch Place Edinburgh EH8 9LW, Scotland, UK alexl~k, ac. ed. copci Nicholas Asher IRIT, Umvermt~ Paul Sabatier 118 Route de Narboane 31062 Toulouse Cedex, France also at: Centre for Cognitive Science and Department of philosophy University of Texas, Austin asherlirit .it Abstract We offer a semantics and pragmatics of the pluperfect in narrative discourse. We rex- amine in a formal model of implicature, how the reader's knowledge about the dis- course, Gricean-maxims and causation con- tribute to the meaning of the pluperfect. By placing the analysis in a theory where the interactions among these knowledge re- sources can be precisely computed, we over- come some problems with previous Re- ichenbachian approaches. 1 Introduction In this paper, we investigate the impact of the plu- perfect tense on the temporal and rhetorical struc- ture of narrative discourse. We will use a represen- tation framework for discourse structure called SDRT (standing for Segmented Discourse Representation Theory) (Asher 1993), and a theory of discourse at- tachment called DICE (standing for Discourse and Commonsense Entailment), which is designed to compute temporal implicatures for natural language texts (Lascarides and Asher 1991). We will argue that the resultant analysis overcomes problems with Reichenbachian theories of tense (e.g., Kamp 1991a). 2 Limitations of Kamp's Account Kamp's (1991a) Reichenbachian account of the plu- perfect is problematic in at least three ways. Firstly, the temporal structure of a text is determined solely *The support of the Science and Engineering Research Council through project number GR/G22077 is grate- fully acknowledged. HCRC is supported by the Economic and Social Research Council. from syntax, so there can be no explanation of why even though (1) has the same tense structure as (2), they are interpreted differently: no order is inferred between the events in (1b-d) while there is temporal progression in (2b-d). (1) a. Alexis was a very good girl by the time she went to bed yesterday. b. She had helped her mum withthe house- work. c. She had practised her piano. d. She had done all her homework. e. We all felt very good about it. (2) a. Max arrived at the summit at midday. b. He had got up at 5:30am, c. had prepared his lunch, and d. had passed base camp before 7am. Intuitively, the order of events in (2b-d) is inferred from causal knowledge about the typical orders be- tween the events and by the temporal information conveyed by the list structure. In contrast, there is no knowledge that enables such an inference in (lb- d). An explanation in these terms requires us to solve the Interaction Problem: The anMysis of the pluperfect must interact in precise and systematic ways with the reader's causal knowledge, pragmatic maxims and the discourse type to yield appropri- ate temporal structures. Kamp's syntactic-based ac- count fails to specify such interactions. The second problem is that, in line with the Re- …

Content truncated to 500 words