anything about their order.
Scenario and integrity constraint might look as follows: (1) (a) Initiates(begin,this-summer,t)
(b) Terminates(end,this-summer,t) (2) (a) Initiates(marry(x, y),married[x, y],t)
(b) ?HoldsAt(this-summer,R1),Happens(marry(François,Adèle),
R1),R1 <nowsucceeds
(3) (a) Initiates(leave-for(x, y),be-in[x, y],t)
(b) ?HoldsAt(this-summer, R2), Happens(leave-for(Jean,Brasil),
R2),R2 <nowsucceeds
(4) (a) Initiates(buy(x, y),have[x, y],t)
(b) ?HoldsAt(this-summer,R3),Happens(buy(Paul,countryhouse),
R3),R3 <nowsucceeds
What we obtain from the integrity constraints, by means of a derivation like the ones given above, is that there are timesR0andR4 such thatHap-
pens(begin,R0),Happens(end,R4),R0 <{R1, R2, R3}and{R1, R2, R3}≤
R4. However, the order ofR1,R2andR3 cannot be determined.
3.1.2. Inchoative use of the PS. Consider again the example (20) Mitterand fut président. (PS)
We have to derive formally that the PS applied to the stative expression ‘be president’, picks out the initiating event. Interestingly, when we are only given the fluent ‘be president’, there is no explicitly given event which warrants the application of the PS. Applying the PS means that a form of coercion is going on, in which the fluent is somehow transformed into an event. The proper way of doing this involves so-called hierarchical plan- ning, as explained in Chapter 3. Since presidents are usually elected, the scenario for ‘be president’ will contain a statement such as 1a. This state- ment contains a reference to the event ‘elect’, which may thus figure in an integrity constraint. We thus get as scenario and integrity constraint
(1) (a) Initiates(elect(x),president[x],t)
(b) ?Happens(elect(M.),R),R <nowsucceeds with corresponding derivation
As can be seen from figure 4, the fluent president[M.] does not hold beforeR. A similar derivation shows that it must hold afterR.
3.2. Imparfait: scenarios and integrity constraints. The integrity constraint associated to the Imparfait must be very different from that asso- ciated to the Passé Simple, for example because an Imp sentence is not felic- itous in isolation, unlike a PS sentence. An Imp sentence must be anchored by means of PS in the discourse. We therefore propose the following.
144 9. TENSE IN FRENCH: PASSÉ SIMPLE AND IMPARFAIT ?HoldsAt(president[M.],t!),t!≤R Axiom 3 --- --- ?Happens(elect(M.),t), Initiates(elect(M.),president[M.],t), t < t!≤R,¬Clipped(t,president[M.],t! Happens(elect(M.),R) $$$$$$ $$$$$$ $$$$$$ ?Initiates(elect(M.),president[M.],R), R < t! ≤ R, ¬Clipped(R,president[M.],t!) f ailure
FIGURE 4. Fluentpresident[M.] beforeR.
DEFINITION37. An Imp VP with an adjacent PS VP introduces an in-
tegrity constraint of the form
?Happens(e, R),HoldsAt(f1, R!), .,HoldsAt(fn, R!), R <now, R!<now,
where e is some PS event of the discourse context (this sentence can pre- cede or come after the Imp sentence), andf1,...,fnare the relevant fluents
describing the Imp verb phrase.
The most relevant part of the integrity constraint for the Imp is theHold- sAt(f, R!) part. This part is what distinguishes the PS and the Imp: the PS introduces an integrity constraint of the form Happens(e, R), possibly to- gether with some other fluents that hold atR, while the integrity constraint associated to the Imp introduces a number ofHoldsAt(f, R!) statements that
are combined with theHappens(e, R) statement of a PS VP in the discourse. 3.2.1. Imparfait as background. Consider the discourse
(21) Il faisait chaud. Jean ôta sa veste. (Imp, PS)
The scenario for these sentences must contain a fluent warm, and an event and a fluent for the achievement ‘take off one’s sweater’. For the latter we choose the eventtake-off, which terminates the fluentwearing; equiva- lently, we could havetake-off initiatenot-wearing. The integrity constraint anchors the fluentwarm; note again that anchoring is only possible given a PS VP.
(1) (a) Terminates(take-off(x, y),wearing[x, y],t)
(b) ?HoldsAt(warm,R),HoldsAt(wearing[Jean,vest],R), Happens(take-off(Jean,vest),R),R <nowsucceeds
The following derivation (figure 5) shows that ‘ Il faisait chaud’ really func- tions as a background.
The final query can succeed only ifwarmis true from the start. The next derivation (figure 6) shows the fate of the fluentwearing[Jean,vest].
3. FORMALIZING THE PASSÉ SIMPLE AND IMPARFAIT 145 ?HoldsAt(warm,R), HoldsAt(wearing[Jean,vest],R), Happens(take-off(Jean,vest),R), R <now 2×Axiom 1 .... ... ... ?Initially(warm),0 < R < now, ¬Clipped(0,warm,R), Initially(wearing[Jean,vest]), ¬Clipped(0,wearing[Jean,vest],R), Happens(take-off(Jean,vest),R)
FIGURE5. Integrity constraint in example (21). ?HoldsAt(wearing[Jean,vest],t), R < t, R < now Axiom 1 ****** ****** ***** ?Initially(wearing[Jean,vest]), ¬Clipped(0,wearing[Jean,vest],t), R < t, R < now ! ! ?Clipped(0, wearing[Jean,vest],t), R < t Axiom 5 //// //// //// f ailure ?Happens(take- off(Jean,vest),R), Terminates(take-off(Jean, vest),wearing[Jean,vest],R), 0 < R < t ?0< R < t % %
FIGURE 6. Fluent wearing[Jean,vest] in example (21) for
t > R.
Hence the fluentwarmis true at all times, while the fluentwearing[Jean,vest] holds untilRand is terminated at this time.
3.2.2. Imparfait for a resultant state.
(22) Jean appuya sur l’interrupteur. La lumière l’éblouissait. (PS, Imp) This is an example where there is no overlap between the two eventualities pushing a button and being blinded. The desired effect is obtained only when the scenario gives some information about the causal relation between the light being on and being blinded; this is the purpose of part 2 of the scenario.
(1) (a) Initiates(push(x,on),light-on,t) (b) Terminates(push(x,off),light-on,t)
(c) ?Happens(push(Jean,y),R),R <nowsucceeds (2) (a) Releases(push(x,on),blinded[x],t)
146 9. TENSE IN FRENCH: PASSÉ SIMPLE AND IMPARFAIT (b) Trajectory(light-on,t,blinded[x],d)
(c) ?Happens(push(Jean,y),R),HoldsAt(light-on,R!),
HoldsAt(blinded[Jean],R!),R <now,R! <nowsucceeds
Figure 7 shows the derivation starting from the integrity constraint 2c. The substitution leading to success is indicated. The last query in the deriva- tion can be made to succeed because the scenario makes no mention of the event of pushing the button to turn off the light, and we therefore obtain the conclusionR < R! < now. ?Happens(push(Jean,y),R), R < now, R! <now, HoldsAt(light-on,R!), HoldsAt(blinded[Jean],R!) Axiom 3 $$$$$$ $$$$$$ $$$$$$ ?Happens(push(Jean,y),R), HoldsAt(blinded[Jean],R!), R < now,
t < R!<now, Happens(push(x,on),t),
Initiates(push(x,on),light-on,t), ¬Clipped(t,light,R!) [Jean/x] [on/y] [R/t] ?Happens(push(Jean,on),R), HoldsAt(blinded[Jean],R!),R < R!< now, Initiates(push(Jean,on),light,R), ¬Clipped(R,light-on,R!) Initiates(push(x,on),light-on,t) ****** ****** ****** **** ?Happens(push(Jean,on),R), HoldsAt(blinded[Jean],R!), R < R! <
now, ¬Clipped(R,light-on,R!)
Trajectory(light-on,t,blinded[x],t+d), Axiom 4 --- --- -- ?Happens(push(Jean,on),R), R < R! <
now, ¬Clipped(R,light-on,R!)
FIGURE7. Integrity constraint in example (22).
3.2.3. Imparfait in an explanatory context. In the following discourse, the second sentence has the function of explaining the event described in the first sentence. The eventuality described in the second sentence should therefore be placed in its entirety before the event described in the first sentence. As will be clear by now, we do not want to have recourse to the rhetorical relation ‘explanation’ here – the intended order should fall out of a planning computation applied to the lexical material.
(23) Jean attrapa une contravention. Il roulait trop vite. (PS, Imp)
The scenario and integrity constraints for this situation could be given by the following list. The first two statements have been included for convenience
3. FORMALIZING THE PASSÉ SIMPLE AND IMPARFAIT 147