Loading…
Temporal modifiers and the Rogers-Aliant dispute
In this article, we discuss a recent dispute between two Canadian companies, Rogers and Aliant, which went before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. This involved an apparently ambiguous provision in an agreement between these companies, the interpretation of which was...
Saved in:
Published in: | Canadian journal of linguistics 2013-03, Vol.58 (1), p.85-103 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c310t-544119ddde8d53f7302a63a65721043b2d9267f64a90bd9670297826c705198b3 |
container_end_page | 103 |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 85 |
container_title | Canadian journal of linguistics |
container_volume | 58 |
creator | Katz, E. Graham Shaer, Benjamin |
description | In this article, we discuss a recent dispute between two Canadian companies, Rogers and Aliant, which went before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. This involved an apparently ambiguous provision in an agreement between these companies, the interpretation of which was widely seen to hinge on the placement of a single comma in this provision, although the dispute was ultimately resolved by reference to the unambiguous French version of this provision. We provide a syntactic and semantic analysis of the linguistic facts of the dispute, rejecting Aliant’s argument (and the CRTC’s original conclusion) that the placement of the comma provided robust evidence of the intended meaning of the disputed provision and showing how two temporal expressions in this provision, thereafter and prior, contribute to the meaning advanced by Rogers. We also demonstrate the essential equivalence of this meaning to that of the French version of the agreement. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S000841310000253X |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1463037878</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S000841310000253X</cupid><sourcerecordid>1463037878</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c310t-544119ddde8d53f7302a63a65721043b2d9267f64a90bd9670297826c705198b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU9LxDAQxYMouK5-AG8FL16qM0maNMdl8R8sCO4K3krapGuXdluT9uC3N2UXFUXwNAzze2-SN4ScI1whoLxeAkDKkWGoQBP2ckAmKBFiREwOyWQcx-P8mJx4vwktSqomBFa26Vqn66hpTVVW1vlIb03Uv9roqV2HNp7Vld72kal8N_T2lByVuvb2bF-n5Pn2ZjW_jxePdw_z2SIuwhv6OOEcURljbGoSVkoGVAumRSIpAmc5NYoKWQquFeRGCQlUyZSKQkKCKs3ZlFzufDvXvg3W91lT-cLWtd7advAZcsGAyVSm_0C5GsMRKqAXP9BNO7ht-EiGTClUkksMFO6owrXeO1tmnasa7d4zhGyMO_sVd9DwT-eNLfpm8PbLPIFUMp4tx5OMF9kpOQ0ytl-lm9xVZv1N9PeyD7AWjTQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1399197471</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Temporal modifiers and the Rogers-Aliant dispute</title><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>Project Muse:Jisc Collections:Project MUSE Journals Agreement 2024:Premium Collection</source><source>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</source><creator>Katz, E. Graham ; Shaer, Benjamin</creator><creatorcontrib>Katz, E. Graham ; Shaer, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><description>In this article, we discuss a recent dispute between two Canadian companies, Rogers and Aliant, which went before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. This involved an apparently ambiguous provision in an agreement between these companies, the interpretation of which was widely seen to hinge on the placement of a single comma in this provision, although the dispute was ultimately resolved by reference to the unambiguous French version of this provision. We provide a syntactic and semantic analysis of the linguistic facts of the dispute, rejecting Aliant’s argument (and the CRTC’s original conclusion) that the placement of the comma provided robust evidence of the intended meaning of the disputed provision and showing how two temporal expressions in this provision, thereafter and prior, contribute to the meaning advanced by Rogers. We also demonstrate the essential equivalence of this meaning to that of the French version of the agreement.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0008-4131</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1710-1115</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S000841310000253X</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CJLGAO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Bilingualism ; Discourse ; Disputes ; French ; Linguistics ; Orphans ; Semantics ; Social representations ; Syntax ; Telecommunications ; Telecommunications industry ; Temporal modifiers</subject><ispartof>Canadian journal of linguistics, 2013-03, Vol.58 (1), p.85-103</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2013</rights><rights>Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique</rights><rights>Copyright Canadian Linguistics Assn Mar 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c310t-544119ddde8d53f7302a63a65721043b2d9267f64a90bd9670297826c705198b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,31248,31249,33202,33203</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Katz, E. Graham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaer, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><title>Temporal modifiers and the Rogers-Aliant dispute</title><title>Canadian journal of linguistics</title><addtitle>Can. J. Linguist</addtitle><description>In this article, we discuss a recent dispute between two Canadian companies, Rogers and Aliant, which went before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. This involved an apparently ambiguous provision in an agreement between these companies, the interpretation of which was widely seen to hinge on the placement of a single comma in this provision, although the dispute was ultimately resolved by reference to the unambiguous French version of this provision. We provide a syntactic and semantic analysis of the linguistic facts of the dispute, rejecting Aliant’s argument (and the CRTC’s original conclusion) that the placement of the comma provided robust evidence of the intended meaning of the disputed provision and showing how two temporal expressions in this provision, thereafter and prior, contribute to the meaning advanced by Rogers. We also demonstrate the essential equivalence of this meaning to that of the French version of the agreement.</description><subject>Bilingualism</subject><subject>Discourse</subject><subject>Disputes</subject><subject>French</subject><subject>Linguistics</subject><subject>Orphans</subject><subject>Semantics</subject><subject>Social representations</subject><subject>Syntax</subject><subject>Telecommunications</subject><subject>Telecommunications industry</subject><subject>Temporal modifiers</subject><issn>0008-4131</issn><issn>1710-1115</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7T9</sourceid><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkU9LxDAQxYMouK5-AG8FL16qM0maNMdl8R8sCO4K3krapGuXdluT9uC3N2UXFUXwNAzze2-SN4ScI1whoLxeAkDKkWGoQBP2ckAmKBFiREwOyWQcx-P8mJx4vwktSqomBFa26Vqn66hpTVVW1vlIb03Uv9roqV2HNp7Vld72kal8N_T2lByVuvb2bF-n5Pn2ZjW_jxePdw_z2SIuwhv6OOEcURljbGoSVkoGVAumRSIpAmc5NYoKWQquFeRGCQlUyZSKQkKCKs3ZlFzufDvXvg3W91lT-cLWtd7advAZcsGAyVSm_0C5GsMRKqAXP9BNO7ht-EiGTClUkksMFO6owrXeO1tmnasa7d4zhGyMO_sVd9DwT-eNLfpm8PbLPIFUMp4tx5OMF9kpOQ0ytl-lm9xVZv1N9PeyD7AWjTQ</recordid><startdate>20130301</startdate><enddate>20130301</enddate><creator>Katz, E. Graham</creator><creator>Shaer, Benjamin</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8BM</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130301</creationdate><title>Temporal modifiers and the Rogers-Aliant dispute</title><author>Katz, E. Graham ; Shaer, Benjamin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c310t-544119ddde8d53f7302a63a65721043b2d9267f64a90bd9670297826c705198b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Bilingualism</topic><topic>Discourse</topic><topic>Disputes</topic><topic>French</topic><topic>Linguistics</topic><topic>Orphans</topic><topic>Semantics</topic><topic>Social representations</topic><topic>Syntax</topic><topic>Telecommunications</topic><topic>Telecommunications industry</topic><topic>Temporal modifiers</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Katz, E. Graham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaer, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ComDisDome</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Canadian journal of linguistics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Katz, E. Graham</au><au>Shaer, Benjamin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Temporal modifiers and the Rogers-Aliant dispute</atitle><jtitle>Canadian journal of linguistics</jtitle><addtitle>Can. J. Linguist</addtitle><date>2013-03-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>58</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>85</spage><epage>103</epage><pages>85-103</pages><issn>0008-4131</issn><eissn>1710-1115</eissn><coden>CJLGAO</coden><abstract>In this article, we discuss a recent dispute between two Canadian companies, Rogers and Aliant, which went before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. This involved an apparently ambiguous provision in an agreement between these companies, the interpretation of which was widely seen to hinge on the placement of a single comma in this provision, although the dispute was ultimately resolved by reference to the unambiguous French version of this provision. We provide a syntactic and semantic analysis of the linguistic facts of the dispute, rejecting Aliant’s argument (and the CRTC’s original conclusion) that the placement of the comma provided robust evidence of the intended meaning of the disputed provision and showing how two temporal expressions in this provision, thereafter and prior, contribute to the meaning advanced by Rogers. We also demonstrate the essential equivalence of this meaning to that of the French version of the agreement.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S000841310000253X</doi><tpages>20</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0008-4131 |
ispartof | Canadian journal of linguistics, 2013-03, Vol.58 (1), p.85-103 |
issn | 0008-4131 1710-1115 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1463037878 |
source | International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Project Muse:Jisc Collections:Project MUSE Journals Agreement 2024:Premium Collection; Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) |
subjects | Bilingualism Discourse Disputes French Linguistics Orphans Semantics Social representations Syntax Telecommunications Telecommunications industry Temporal modifiers |
title | Temporal modifiers and the Rogers-Aliant dispute |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T01%3A00%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Temporal%20modifiers%20and%20the%20Rogers-Aliant%20dispute&rft.jtitle=Canadian%20journal%20of%20linguistics&rft.au=Katz,%20E.%20Graham&rft.date=2013-03-01&rft.volume=58&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=85&rft.epage=103&rft.pages=85-103&rft.issn=0008-4131&rft.eissn=1710-1115&rft.coden=CJLGAO&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S000841310000253X&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1463037878%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c310t-544119ddde8d53f7302a63a65721043b2d9267f64a90bd9670297826c705198b3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1399197471&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S000841310000253X&rfr_iscdi=true |