Will, scope and modality: a response to Broekhuis and Verkuyl
Kissine (2008) argues that English will cannot be treated as a modal without entailing absurd consequences. Broekhuis and Verkuyl (2014) object that this argument rests on faulty scope relations between negation and will. In this short squib I argue that holding both that will scopes over negation and that will is a modal leads to absurd consequences.
KeywordsFuture tense Modality Negation scope
I would like to thank Louise McNally and three anonymous NLLT reviewers for their remarks and comments.
- Enç, Mürvet. 1996. Tense and modality. In The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. Shalom Lappin, 345–358. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
- Kissine, Mikhail. 2013. Modalité et marquage du futur. Pour une dissociation sémantique. Cahiers Chronos 26: 165–182. Google Scholar
- Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In Semantics: an international handbook of contemporary research, eds. Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, 639–650. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar