<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="E89-1027">
  <Title>pect and Events within the setting of an Improved Tense Logic. In: Studies in Formal Semantics (North-Holland</Title>
  <Section position="8" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
9. TEMPORAL CONJUNCTIONS
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> For some temporal conjunctions there are two basic variants, the &amp;quot;particular&amp;quot; usage and the &amp;quot;iterative&amp;quot; usage. We illustrate this phenomenon for when: (N) whenl (particular usage of when): WHENI(RI,R2): (for &amp;quot;RI, when R2&amp;quot;)</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> (17) When John went to the librar~ he found 10 ~. (Once t when ... ) In (17) there is a reference to a single T-phase of (RI&gt; and a single T-phase of (R2). One can show that the truth condition for when I is equivalent to</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> but this form is avoidable (cf. (H) and the end of 5.).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> (0) when2(iterative usage of when): WHEN2RI,R2): (for &amp;quot;RI, when R2&amp;quot;) (18) When John went to the library.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> he took the bus. (Whenever ... ) In (18) something is said about all T-phases of (R2~ , namely Vx 3y(alt(NEX(x(R2~ ,y(R~ ) * NuO) , which is equivalent to the truth condition for when 2.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> Conjunctions like while, as lon~ as etc. are represented in a similar way with the phase-operator PER (cf. (F)). For the conjunctions after, before, since and till one needs in addition an ANTE- and a POST-operator, which are tense-dependent (the main difference is caused by imperfective vs. perfective) and modify the arguments of the phase-operators. Some of the conjunctions have both basic variants, whereas since admits no iterative usage.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> - 203 The meaning of since is expressed by (P) since: (only particular usage) SINCE(Rfl,R2): (for &amp;quot;Rfl, since R2&amp;quot;) alt(P~(PosT((~2)), (RI)~ ~ ~u deg, and the truth condition for afterq is (Q) afterq (particular usage of after)s AFTERI(Rq,R2): (for &amp;quot;Rq, after R2&amp;quot;) alt(PER((RI~ ,POST((R2)))) , ~U deg It turns out that an analysis of temporal conjunctions based only on the Reichenbach scheme causes some difficulties. It works very well for when and while (cf. Hornstein 1977) and the German equivalents (als/wenn, w~hrend and solam~e), but for the remaining cases ANTE- and POST-operations seem to be inivitable.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> qO . AN F~iPIRI CAL CONFIP~IATION By combining the rules for te~se-assig~ment and the truth conditions for the temporal conjunctions (in German there are seven basic types) and by allowing for some res~rictiomsfor their use (e. g. als only for Past, seit not for Future) one gets for each conjunction a prediction about the possible combinations of tenses in the matrix and the temporal clause.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> Gelhaus (q97@) has published statistical data about the distributions of tenses in the matrix and the temporal clause for German. From the huge L!MAScorpus the took all instances of the use of temporal conjunctions. From my calculus one cannot obtain statistics, of course, it decides only on &amp;quot;correcthess&amp;quot;. The comparlsion proved that there is an almost complete coincidence.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> The combinations for als/wenn cannot be derived, if one takes OOC instead of NEX in (N) and (O). The same seems to be the case for when. The restrictions for the propositions R I and R 2 (e. g. \[+FINIT\]), given by Wunderlich (1970), can be deduced from the truth conditions (details about both questions in (Kunze (1987)).</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>