Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 1427–1431 | Cite as

Will, scope and modality: a response to Broekhuis and Verkuyl

  • Mikhail Kissine


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.


Future tense Modality Negation scope 



I would like to thank Louise McNally and three anonymous NLLT reviewers for their remarks and comments.


  1. Broekhuis, Hans, and Henk J. Verkuyl. 2014. Binary tense and modality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 973–1009. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Enç, Mürvet. 1996. Tense and modality. In The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. Shalom Lappin, 345–358. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  3. Kaufmann, Stefan. 2005. Conditional truth and future reference. Journal of Semantics 22: 119–128. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kissine, Mikhail. 2008. Why will is not a modal. Natural Language Semantics 16: 129–155. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kissine, Mikhail. 2013. Modalité et marquage du futur. Pour une dissociation sémantique. Cahiers Chronos 26: 165–182. Google Scholar
  6. Klecha, Peter. 2014. Diagnosing modality in predictive expressions. Journal of Semantics 31: 443–455. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LaDiscoUniversité Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations