DOCSLIB.ORG

Interpreting Questions with Non-Exhaustive Answers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Interpreting Questions with Non-Exhaustive Answers Interpreting Questions with Non-exhaustive Answers A dissertation presented by Yimei Xiang to The Department of Linguistics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Linguistics Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts May 2016 © 2016 – Yimei Xiang All rights reserved. iii Dissertation Advisor: Prof. Gennaro Chierchia Yimei Xiang Interpreting Questions with Non-exhaustive Answers Abstract This dissertation investigates the semantics of questions, with a focus on phenomena that challenge the standard views of the related core issues, as well as those that are technically difficult to capture under standard compositional semantics. It begins by re-examining several fundamental issues, such as what a question denotes, how a question is composed, and what a wh-item denotes. It then tackles questions with complex structures, including mention-some questions, multi-wh questions, and questions with quantifiers. It also explores several popular issues, such as variations of exhaustivity, sensitivity to false answers, and quantificational variability effects. Chapter 1 discusses some fundamental issues on question semantics. I pursue a hybrid categorial approach and define question roots as topical properties, which can supply propositional answers as well as nominal short answers. But different from traditional categorial approaches, I treat wh- items as existential quantifiers, which can be shifted into domain restrictors via a BeDom-operator. Moreover, I argue that the live-on set of a plural or number-neutral wh-item is polymorphic: it consists of not only individuals but also generalized conjunctions and disjunctions. Chapter 2 and 3 are centered on mention-some questions. Showing that the availability of mention-some should be grammatically restricted, I attribute the mention-some/mention-all ambi- guity of 3-questions to structural variations within the question nucleus. The variations include the scope ambiguity of the higher-order wh-trace and the absence/presence of a null dou. Further, I solve the dilemma between uniqueness and mention-some by allowing the short answers to be interpreted with wide scope. Chapter 4 investigates the role of false answers (FAs) in interpreting indirect questions. I focus on the following two facts: first, FA-sensitivity is involved in interpreting mention-some questions; second, FA-sensitivity is concerned with all types of false answers, not just those that are potentially complete. These facts challenge the current dominant analysis that derives FA-sensitivity by exhaustifications. In Chapter 5 and 6, I turn to multiple-wh questions and questions with quantifiers. Crucially, contra the current dominant view, I argue that pair-list readings of multi-wh questions are not subject to domain exhaustivity, unlike those of questions with a universal quantifier. Chapter 6 explores two approaches to composing quantifying-into question readings, including a higher-order question approach and a function-based approach. Both approaches manage to treat quantifying-into question as regular quantification. Chapter 7 presents a uniform treatment for the seemingly diverse functions of the Mandarin particle dou. I argue that dou is an exhaustifier that operates on pre-exhaustified sub-alternatives. This chapter provides a baseline theory for the derivation of disjunctive mention-all answers to mention-some questions. Contents 1 Introducing a hybrid categorial approach1 1.1 Introduction...........................................1 1.2 The starting point: Caponigro’s Generalization.......................2 1.3 Comparing canonical approaches of question semantics.................4 1.3.1 Categorial approaches.................................4 1.3.2 Hamblin-Karttunen Semantics............................5 1.3.3 Partition Semantics...................................9 1.3.4 Comparing lambda abstracts, Hamblin sets, and partitions........... 11 1.3.5 Summing up...................................... 13 1.4 A hybrid categorial approach................................. 13 1.4.1 Topical property.................................... 14 1.4.2 Answerhood....................................... 17 1.4.3 Question coordinations................................ 19 1.5 Applications of the hybrid categorial approach....................... 23 1.5.1 Getting Caponigro’s Generalization: Free relatives................ 23 1.5.2 Quantificational variability effects.......................... 25 1.5.3 Wh-conditionals in Mandarin............................. 27 1.6 Live-on sets of wh-items.................................... 29 1.6.1 The traditional view.................................. 29 1.6.2 Disjunctions....................................... 30 1.6.3 Conjunctions...................................... 31 1.6.4 Analysis......................................... 33 1.7 Summary............................................. 35 2 Mention-some questions 37 2.1 Introduction........................................... 37 2.2 What is a mention-some reading?.............................. 38 2.3 What is not a mention-some reading?............................ 41 2.3.1 Ex-questions with partial readings.......................... 42 2.3.2 9-questions with choice readings........................... 43 2.4 Earlier approaches of mention-some............................. 44 iv CONTENTS v 2.4.1 The pragmatic line................................... 45 2.4.2 The post-structural line................................ 46 2.5 A structural approach: Fox(2013).............................. 48 2.5.1 Completeness and answerhood............................ 49 2.5.2 Deriving the ambiguity................................ 50 2.5.3 Advantages and remaining issues.......................... 52 2.6 Proposal............................................. 53 2.6.1 Deriving mention-some................................ 54 2.6.2 Conjunctive mention-all................................ 58 2.6.3 Disjunctive mention-all................................ 58 2.7 Comparing the exhaustifiers in deriving free choice.................... 65 2.8 Summary............................................. 70 3 The dilemma 71 3.1 Dayal’s presupposition..................................... 72 3.1.1 Uniqueness effects................................... 72 3.1.2 Questions with collective predicates......................... 74 3.2 The dilemma........................................... 76 3.3 Fox(2013) on uniqueness................................... 78 3.4 Proposal............................................. 80 3.4.1 Scope ambiguity and type-lifting........................... 81 3.4.2 Preserving mention-some............................... 82 3.4.3 Preserving the merits of Dayal’s presupposition.................. 84 3.4.4 Weak island effects................................... 86 3.5 Anti-presuppositions of plural questions.......................... 87 3.6 Summary............................................. 88 4 Variation of exhaustivity and FA-sensitivity 89 4.1 Introduction........................................... 89 4.2 Background........................................... 90 4.2.1 Interrogative-embedding predicates......................... 90 4.2.2 Forms of exhaustivity................................. 92 4.3 Two facts on FA-sensitivity.................................. 94 4.3.1 FA-sensitivity under mention-some......................... 94 4.3.2 FA-sensitivity to partial answers........................... 95 4.4 The exhaustification-based approach and its problems.................. 96 4.4.1 The exhaustification-based approach........................ 96 4.4.2 Extending the exhaustification-based account to mention-some......... 98 4.4.3 Problems with the exhaustification-based account................. 99 4.5 Proposal............................................. 102 4.5.1 Characterizing Completeness............................. 102 CONTENTS vi 4.5.2 Characterizing FA-sensitivity............................. 103 4.6 Other issues........................................... 106 4.6.1 FA-sensitivity and factivity.............................. 106 4.6.2 MS-collapsing under agree: Opinionatedness.................... 109 4.7 Over-denying and asymmetries of FA-sensitivity: Experimental evidence..................................... 112 4.7.1 Design.......................................... 112 4.7.2 Results and discussions................................ 113 4.7.3 Asymmetries of FA-sensitivity............................ 115 4.8 Lines of approaches to the WE/SE distinction....................... 117 4.8.1 The answerhood-based approaches......................... 117 4.8.2 The strengthener-based approaches......................... 118 4.8.3 The neg-raising based approach........................... 121 4.9 Summary............................................. 122 5 Pair-list readings of multi-wh questions 123 5.1 Introduction........................................... 123 5.2 The phenomenon: Domain exhaustivity?.......................... 124 5.3 Previous accounts and their problems............................ 126 5.3.1 Function-based approaches.............................. 126 5.3.2 Higher-order question approaches.......................... 130 5.4 Proposal: a non-crazy function-based approach...................... 132 5.4.1 Adding functions to the live-on sets of wh-items.................. 133 5.4.2 Deriving pair-list readings.............................. 135 5.4.3 Functional mention-some and pair-list mention-some............... 137 5.4.4 Quantificational variability effects.........................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 Semantics in Generative Grammar. by Irene Heim & Angelika Kratzer
    Semantics in generative grammar. By Irene Heim & Angelika Kratzer. Malden & Oxford: Blackwell, 1998. Pp. ix, 324. Introduction to natural language semantics. By Henriëtte de Swart. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1998. Pp. xiv, 257. Although there aren’t that many text books on formal semantics, their average quality is quite good, and these two recent additions don’t lower the standard by any means. ‘Semantics in generative grammar’ (SGG) is the more innovative of the two. As its title indicates, SGG focuses its attention on the syntax/semantics interface, with particular emphasis on quantification and anaphora. These two subjects are discussed in considerable detail, while many others receive only a cursory treatment or are not addressed at all. We learn from the preface that this was a deliberate choice: ‘We want to help students develop the ability for semantic analysis, and, in view of this goal, we think that exploring a few topics in detail is more effective than offering a bird’s-eye view of everything.’ (p. ix) Having enjoyed the results of Heim and Kratzer’s explorations, I can only agree with this judgment. SGG falls into three main parts. The first part introduces the two notions that are at the heart of the formal semantics enterprise, viz. truth conditions and compositionality, and then goes on to develop a compositional truth- conditional semantics for a core fragment of English. The second part discusses variable binding and quantification, and the third part is an in-depth discussion of anaphora. All these developments are kept within an extensional framework. 06-09-1999 1 Intensional phenomena are addressed only briefly, in the last chapter of the book.
    [Show full text]
  • Expletive Negation Beyond Romance. Clausal Complementation and Epistemic Modality
    Expletive Negation beyond Romance. Clausal Complementation and Epistemic Modality. Maria-Margarita Makri Master of Arts (by Research) University of York Language and Linguistic Science December 2013 Abstract This thesis examines whether Expletive Negation (EN) in attitude contexts is in- deed semantically vacuous and which are its licensing conditions. By examining the crosslinguistic distribution of EN, I show that EN is not dependent on the mood specification of the embedded clause contra what has been previously argued (e.g. Abels 2005, Espinal 2000, Yoon 2011) but rather it is only licensed in tensed clauses. I show that EN complements are selected by predicates that also select for questions. I present new asymmetries between EN and that complements: more specifically, I show that epistemic modals are not licensed in EN complements, an attitude with an EN-complement cannot function as a felicitous answer, matrix negation has different scope in EN and non-EN clauses and that EN can be used instead of an epistemic in counterfactuals. Based on these asymmetries and the previously established necessary condition for tense, I propose that EN is an epistemic modal. EN actually indicates that the doxastic alternatives of the attitude holder are equally probably and thus the semantics of EN complements are very similar to that of embedded questions. Even though the distributions of embedded questions and EN complements largely overlap and the two constructions can be changed without any difference in the meaning I demonstrate that their distribution is not identical and thus further investigation is necessary. 2 List of Contents Abstract 2 List of Tables 6 List of Figures 7 Acknowledgments 8 Author's Declaration 9 1 Introduction 11 2 The empirical Picture: Environments that License Expletive Nega- tion 12 3 Background on Expletive Negation 19 4 Expletive Negation and Negative Concord 23 4.1 Background on Negative Concord and Negative words .
    [Show full text]
  • Degrees As Kinds Vs. Degrees As Numbers: Evidence from Equatives1 Linmin ZHANG — NYU Shanghai
    Degrees as kinds vs. degrees as numbers: Evidence from equatives1 Linmin ZHANG — NYU Shanghai Abstract. Within formal semantics, there are two views with regard to the ontological status of degrees: the ‘degree-as-number’ view (e.g., Seuren, 1973; Hellan, 1981; von Stechow, 1984) and the ‘degree-as-kind’ view (e.g., Anderson and Morzycki, 2015). Based on (i) empirical distinctions between comparatives and equatives and (ii) Stevens’s (1946) theory on the four levels of measurements, I argue that both views are motivated and needed in accounting for measurement- and comparison-related meanings in natural language. Specifically, I argue that since the semantics of comparatives potentially involves measurable differences, comparatives need to be analyzed based on scales with units, on which degrees are like (real) numbers. In contrast, since equatives are typically used to convey the non-existence of differences, equa- tives can be based on scales without units, on which degrees can be considered kinds. Keywords: (Gradable) adjectives, Comparatives, Equatives, Similatives, Levels of measure- ments, Measurements, Comparisons, Kinds, Degrees, Dimensions, Scales, Units, Differences. 1. Introduction The notion of degrees plays a fundamental conceptual role in understanding measurements and comparisons. Within the literature of formal semantics, there are two major competing views with regard to the ontological status of degrees. For simplicity, I refer to these two ontologies as the ‘degree-as-number’ view and the ‘degree-as-kind’ view in this paper. Under the more canonical ‘degree-as-number’ view, degrees are considered primitive objects (of type d). Degrees are points on abstract totally ordered scales (see Seuren, 1973; Hellan, 1981; von Stechow, 1984; Heim, 1985; Kennedy, 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Forks in the Road to Rule I* Irene Heim Massachusetts Institute Of
    Forks in the Road to Rule I* Irene Heim Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1. Introduction Tanya Reinhart pioneered and developed a new and very influential approach to the syntax and semantics of anaphora. It originated in Reinhart (1983a, b) and underwent various later modifications, e.g., Grodzinsky & Reinhart (1993), Heim (1993), Fox (1998, 2000), Reinhart (2000, 2006), Büring (2005). The central innovation concerned the architecture of the theory. The labor traditionally assigned to Binding Theory was broken up into two very different modules. One component (the “real” Binding Theory, if you will) regulates only one type of anaphoric relation, namely variable binding in the sense of logic. A new and different mechanism, variously thought of as a pragmatic principle, an economy constraint, and an interface rule, takes care of regulating other semantic relations, particularly coreference. The latter mechanism crucially involves the construction and comparison of alternative Logical Forms and their meanings. I would like to reexamine the line of reasoning that has led to this bi-modular architecture. I will suggest that the problems it was meant to solve could have been addressed in a different way. My alternative proposal will borrow many essential moves from Reinhart, but her architectural innovation will effectively be undone. 2. Semantically Naive Binding Theory The Binding Theory (BT) we teach in intro linguistics is built on observations about the possible readings of sentences like (1) and (2), and it takes the form of generalizations like those in (3). (1) Bert pointed at him. * Working on this paper has been a vivid reminder of how much inspiration and insight I gained from thinking about Tanya’s work and from arguing with her when I was young.
    [Show full text]
  • A Theory of Names and True Intensionality*
    A Theory of Names and True Intensionality? Reinhard Muskens Tilburg Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science [email protected] http://let.uvt.nl/general/people/rmuskens/ Abstract. Standard approaches to proper names, based on Kripke's views, hold that the semantic values of expressions are (set-theoretic) functions from possible worlds to extensions and that names are rigid designators, i.e. that their values are constant functions from worlds to entities. The difficulties with these approaches are well-known and in this paper we develop an alternative. Based on earlier work on a higher order logic that is truly intensional in the sense that it does not validate the axiom scheme of Extensionality, we develop a simple theory of names in which Kripke's intuitions concerning rigidity are accounted for, but the more unpalatable consequences of standard implementations of his theory are avoided. The logic uses Frege's distinction between sense and reference and while it accepts the rigidity of names it rejects the view that names have direct reference. Names have constant denotations across possible worlds, but the semantic value of a name is not determined by its denotation. Keywords: names, axiom of extensionality, true intensionality, rigid designation 1 Introduction Standard approaches to proper names, based on Kripke (1971, 1972), make the following three assumptions. (a) The semantic values of expressions are (possibly partial) functions from pos- sible worlds to extensions. (b) These functions are identified with their graphs, as in set theory. (c) Names are rigid designators, i.e. their extensions are world-independent. In particular, the semantic values of names are taken to be constant functions from worlds to entities, possibly undefined for some worlds.
    [Show full text]
  • RASLAN 2017 Recent Advances in Slavonic Natural Language Processing
    RASLAN 2017 Recent Advances in Slavonic Natural Language Processing A. Horák, P. Rychlý, A. Rambousek (Eds.) RASLAN 2017 Recent Advances in Slavonic Natural Language Processing Eleventh Workshop on Recent Advances in Slavonic Natural Language Processing, RASLAN 2017 Karlova Studánka, Czech Republic, December 1–3, 2017 Proceedings Tribun EU 2017 Proceedings Editors Aleš Horák Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk University Department of Information Technologies Botanická 68a CZ-602 00 Brno, Czech Republic Email: [email protected] Pavel Rychlý Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk University Department of Information Technologies Botanická 68a CZ-602 00 Brno, Czech Republic Email: [email protected] Adam Rambousek Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk University Department of Information Technologies Botanická 68a CZ-602 00 Brno, Czech Republic Email: [email protected] This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Czech Copyright Law, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Tribun EU. Violations are liable for prosecution under the Czech Copyright Law. Editors © Aleš Horák, 2017; Pavel Rychlý, 2017; Adam Rambousek, 2017 Typography © Adam Rambousek, 2017 Cover © Petr Sojka, 2010 This edition © Tribun EU, Brno, 2017 ISBN 978-80-263-1340-3 ISSN 2336-4289 Preface This volume contains the Proceedings of the Eleventh Workshop on Recent Advances in Slavonic Natural Language Processing (RASLAN 2017) held on December 1st–3rd 2017 in Karlova Studánka, Sporthotel Kurzovní, Jeseníky, Czech Republic.
    [Show full text]
  • Constraints on Donkey Pronouns
    Constraints on Donkey Pronouns The MIT Faculty has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters. Citation Grosz, P. G., P. Patel-Grosz, E. Fedorenko, and E. Gibson. “Constraints on Donkey Pronouns.” Journal of Semantics 32, no. 4 (July 15, 2014): 619–648. As Published http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffu009 Publisher Oxford University Press Version Author's final manuscript Citable link http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/102962 Terms of Use Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike Detailed Terms http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ CONSTRAINTS ON DONKEY PRONOUNS Patrick Grosz, Pritty Patel-Grosz, Evelina Fedorenko, Edward Gibson Abstract This paper reports on an experimental study of donkey pronouns, pronouns (e.g. it) whose meaning covaries with that of a non-pronominal noun phrase (e.g. a donkey) even though they are not in a structural relationship that is suitable for quantifier-variable binding. We investigate three constraints, (i) the preference for the presence of an overt NP antecedent that is not part of another word, (ii) the salience of the position of an antecedent that is part of another word, and (iii) the uniqueness of an intended antecedent (in terms of world knowledge). We compare constructions in which intended antecedents occur in a context such as who owns an N / who is an N-owner with constructions of the type who was without an N / who was N-less. Our findings corroborate the existence of the overt NP antecedent constraint, and also show that the salience of an unsuitable antecedent’s position matters.
    [Show full text]
  • EISS 12 Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 12
    EISS 12 Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 12 Edited by Christopher Pinon 2019 CSSP Paris http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss12/ ISSN 1769-7158 Contents Preface iv Anne Abeillé & Shrita Hassamal 1–30 Sluicing in Mauritian: A Fragment-Based Analysis Aixiu An & Anne Abeillé 31–60 Number Agreement in French Binomials Micky Daniels & Yael Greenberg 61–89 Extreme Adjectives in Comparative Structures and even Emilie Destruel & Joseph P. De Veaugh-Geiss 91–120 (Non-)Exhaustivity in French c’est-Clefts Regine Eckardt & Andrea Beltrama 121–155 Evidentials and Questions Yanwei Jin & Jean-Pierre Koenig 157–186 Expletive Negation in English, French, and Mandarin: A Semantic and Language Production Model Fabienne Martin & Zsófia Gyarmathy 187–216 A Finer-grained Typology of Perfective Operators Vítor Míguez 217–246 On (Un)certainty: The Semantic Evolution of Galician seguramente Emanuel Quadros 247–276 The Semantics of Possessive Noun Phrases and Temporal Modifiers EISS 12 iii Preface This is the twelfth volume of the series Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics (EISS), which, like the preceding eleven volumes of the series, is closely related to the conference series Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris (CSSP). The nine papers included in the present volume are based on presentations given at CSSP 2017, which took place on 23–25 November 2017 at École Normale Supérieure (http: //www.cssp.cnrs.fr/cssp2017/index_en.html). CSSP 2017 had a small thematic session entitled Discourse particles, but since the number of papers from the thematic session submitted to the volume was low, they are not grouped separately. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the reviewers, whose comments aided the authors in revising the first drafts of their pa- pers, sometimes substantially.
    [Show full text]
  • Donkey Anaphora Is In-Scope Binding∗
    Semantics & Pragmatics Volume 1, Article 1: 1–46, 2008 doi: 10.3765/sp.1.1 Donkey anaphora is in-scope binding∗ Chris Barker Chung-chieh Shan New York University Rutgers University Received 2008-01-06 = First Decision 2008-02-29 = Revised 2008-03-23 = Second Decision 2008-03-25 = Revised 2008-03-27 = Accepted 2008-03-27 = Published 2008- 06-09 Abstract We propose that the antecedent of a donkey pronoun takes scope over and binds the donkey pronoun, just like any other quantificational antecedent would bind a pronoun. We flesh out this idea in a grammar that compositionally derives the truth conditions of donkey sentences containing conditionals and relative clauses, including those involving modals and proportional quantifiers. For example, an indefinite in the antecedent of a conditional can bind a donkey pronoun in the consequent by taking scope over the entire conditional. Our grammar manages continuations using three independently motivated type-shifters, Lift, Lower, and Bind. Empirical support comes from donkey weak crossover (*He beats it if a farmer owns a donkey): in our system, a quantificational binder need not c-command a pronoun that it binds, but must be evaluated before it, so that donkey weak crossover is just a special case of weak crossover. We compare our approach to situation-based E-type pronoun analyses, as well as to dynamic accounts such as Dynamic Predicate Logic. A new ‘tower’ notation makes derivations considerably easier to follow and manipulate than some previous grammars based on continuations. Keywords: donkey anaphora, continuations, E-type pronoun, type-shifting, scope, quantification, binding, dynamic semantics, weak crossover, donkey pronoun, variable-free, direct compositionality, D-type pronoun, conditionals, situation se- mantics, c-command, dynamic predicate logic, donkey weak crossover ∗ Thanks to substantial input from Anna Chernilovskaya, Brady Clark, Paul Elbourne, Makoto Kanazawa, Chris Kennedy, Thomas Leu, Floris Roelofsen, Daniel Rothschild, Anna Szabolcsi, Eytan Zweig, and three anonymous referees.
    [Show full text]
  • Nominal Anchoring
    Nominal anchoring Specificity, definiteness and article systems across languages Edited by Kata Balogh Anja Latrouite Robert D. Van Valin‚ Jr. language Topics at the Grammar­Discourse science press Interface 5 Topics at the Grammar­Discourse Interface Editors: Philippa Cook (University of Göttingen), Anke Holler (University of Göttingen), Cathrine Fabricius­Hansen (University of Oslo) In this series: 1. Song, Sanghoun. Modeling information structure in a cross­linguistic perspective. 2. Müller, Sonja. Distribution und Interpretation von Modalpartikel­Kombinationen. 3. Bueno Holle, Juan José. Information structure in Isthmus Zapotec narrative and conversation. 4. Parikh, Prashant. Communication and content. 5. Balogh, Kata, Anja Latrouite & Robert D. Van Valin‚ Jr. (eds.) Nominal anchoring: Specificity, definiteness and article systems across languages. ISSN: 2567­3335 Nominal anchoring Specificity, definiteness and article systems across languages Edited by Kata Balogh Anja Latrouite Robert D. Van Valin‚ Jr. language science press Balogh, Kata, Anja Latrouite & Robert D. Van Valin‚ Jr. (eds.). 2020. Nominal anchoring: Specificity, definiteness and article systems across languages (Topics at the Grammar-Discourse Interface 5). Berlin: Language Science Press. This title can be downloaded at: http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/283 © 2020, the authors Published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence (CC BY 4.0): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ISBN: 978-3-96110-284-6 (Digital) 978-3-96110-285-3 (Hardcover) ISSN:
    [Show full text]
  • Individual/Degree Polysemy∗
    individual/degree polysemy∗ The Emergence of Number Conference, OSU Jessica Rett June 29, 2018 1 introduction • historically, several different and distinct phenomena: { amount relatives (Carlson, 1980; Heim, 1987; Grosu and Landman, 1998) (1) a. Jane drank [DP the champagne [CP they bought that evening]] individual b. It will take us the rest of our lives to drink [DP the champagne [CP they spilled that evening]] amount { container/pseudopartitive polysemy (Chierchia, 1998) (2) a. Jane smashed [DP the bottle of wine] container b. Jane drank [DP the bottle of wine] content { measure phrase polysemy (Stavrou, 2003; Landman, 2004; Rothstein, 2009) (3) a. The [two cups of wine] on this tray are blue. substance b. The [two cups of wine] in this soup is overkill. measure noun { the `how many' ambiguity (Cresti, 1995; Romero, 1998) (4) How many books must Jane read? a. Jane was told to read specific books. How many of them? object b. Jane was told to read a specific number of books. What was it? amount • correspondingly, different and distinct formal accounts: { amount relatives (Grosu, 2009; Kotek, 2011) ∗ lots of options, all construction-specific: ∗ syntactic ambiguity from a covert maximality operator in the CP; or ∗ syntactically restricted deferred reference or polysemy { container/pseudopartitive polysemy ∗ from Chierchia 1998: a construction-specific type-shifter C from a container x to its contained substance y (5) a. John smoked two packs of cigarettes. b. rλxpsmoke(John, Cpxqqqs (2(pl(pack(ι cigarettes)))) ∗ informally: `John smoked the contents of two packs of cigarettes.' ∗ elsewhere (in line with what I will propose; Pustejovsky 1995; Pustejovsky and Bouillon 1995): this is a semantic polysemy with syntactic effects ∗The bulk of this talk is based on Rett 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • Similatives and the Argument Structure of Verbs∗
    Similatives and the argument structure of verbs∗ Jessica Rett May 2012 Abstract I begin with the observation in Haspelmath and Buchholz (1998) that languages tend to use the same morpheme to mark the standard of comparison across equation constructions. In English, it is the morpheme as, in similatives like John danced as Sue (did) and equatives like John is as tall as Sue (is). The first goal of this paper is to provide an analysis of as that accounts for its distribution across these constructions. The second goal of this paper is to provide an account of Haspelmath and Buchholz's second observation, which is that while languages can form equatives with parameter markers (the first as in John is as tall as Sue (is)), languages generally do not form similatives with parameter markers. I suggest that equation constructions are a test for lexicalized argumenthood, i.e. that the equation of a non-lexicalized argument prohibits the presence of a PM, and, for English, vice-versa. This leads to the conclusion that, contrary to recent claims (Pi~n´on2008, Bochnak forthcoming), verbs, unlike adjectives, generally do not lexicalize degree arguments. 1 Introduction This paper has a narrow empirical goal and a broader theoretical goal. The former has to do with several con- structions which form a natural morphological and semantic class across languages: equation constructions, exemplified in (1) and (2) in English. (1) a. John read the same book as Sue. same/different construction b. John is as tall as Sue. equative (2) a. John danced as Sue did. (manner) similative b.
    [Show full text]