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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Canadian journal of linguistics 2013-03, Vol.58 (1), p.85-103
Main Authors: Katz, E. Graham, Shaer, Benjamin
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