1 bare arguments: part ii semantic structures ‘10
Post on 22-Dec-2015
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
Bare arguments: Part II
Semantic Structures ‘10
2
Chierchia
Longobardi:
Italian common nouns need a D to be able to appear in argument position.
English common nouns don’t need a D to be able to appear in argument position.
Chierchia:
Italian common nouns are of type <e,t> and cannot be type-shifted (at least not without a covert D). [-arg; +pred]
English common nouns are of type <e,t> and can be type-shifted to type e or type <<e,t>,t>. [+arg; +pred]
Chierchia & Longobardi
3
Chierchia
How does he derive the narrow-scope behaviour of the English bare plural?
e
<e,t>
<<e,t>,t>
KIND
Realization
English bare plural
4
Chierchia
How does he derive the narrow-scope behaviour of the Italian bare plural?
Italian bare plural
e
<e,t>
<<e,t>,t>
KIND
Realization
5
Chierchia
Does he have anything to say about other languages?
[-arg; +pred]
[+arg; +pred]
[-arg; -pred]
[+arg; -pred]
Italian
English
No language
Chinese
Typology
6
Chierchia
What Chierchia adds to type-shifting:
- typology (extra constraint on type-shifting)
- all argumental uses of bare nominals across all languages pass through kinds (and therefore only take narrow scope)
=> NEO-CARLSONIAN ANALYSIS
7
Dayal
There’s a small problem in Hindi:
#caaro taraf bacca khel rahaa thaafour ways child play PROG PAST‘A (same) child was playing everywhere.’
If bare nominals are always kind-referring and always take narrow-scope the above sentence should be fine...but it’s not...
Does this endanger the generalization that bare nominals always refer to kinds and that they always take narrow scope?
Dayal & Chierchia
8
Dayal
NO!
Hindi distinguishes between singular and plural kinds.
Singular kinds do not allow access to their instantiations.two of these whales -> two of this type of whaletwo of this whale -> two of this type of whale
The only way to derive a reading for bacca is through the type-shift.
The apparent indefinite reading arises because the covert type-shift doesn’t carry any familiarity requirement.
Dayal & Chierchia
9
Overview
Longobardi -> syntax Italian, English
Chierchia -> semanticsItalian, English, Chineselanguages vary along the pred and
arg parametersall bare noun arguments refer to
kinds and take narrow scope Dayal -> semantics
Hindiall bare noun arguments refer to kinds but
only plural kinds allow access to their instantiations
10
11
What about your language?
a. Walvissen zijn zoogdieren.whales are mammals‘Whales are mammals.’
b. De walvissen zijn zoogdieren.the whales are mammals‘Whales are mammals.’
c. Zij werkt niet samen met collega’s.she works not together with colleagues‘She doesn’t collaborate with colleagues.’
12
What about your language?
a. Ballenas son mamíferos.
whales are mammals
b. Las ballenas son mamíferos.
the whales are mammals
‘Whales are mammals.’
c. A la reunión no asistieron profesores.
at the meeting not attended professors
‘No professors attended the meeting.’
13
What about your language?
Amharic
Whale is mammal.
The whale is mammal.
He didn’t buy house.
He didn’t buy houses.
14
What about your language?
Chinese
15
16
A syntactic interludium
Boskovic (2005): ‘What will you have, DP or NP?’
Borer (2005): In name only
17
Boskovic (2005)
He saw expensive cars.
*Expensive he saw cars. (English)
Expensive he saw cars. (Serbo-Croatian)
Some preliminary facts
18
Boskovic (2005)
You like friends of Peter.
[Who] do you like friends of. (Eng)
[Who] do you like friends of. (SC)
Some preliminary facts
19
Boskovic (2005)
Serbo-Croatian doesn’t have covert Ds whereas English does.
How does this explain the facts?
Why is this relevant for us?
the generalization
20
Boskovic (2005)
PIC
Phase Impenetrability Condition:
“only the Spec of a phase is accessible for movement outside the phase”
explaining the facts
21
Boskovic (2005)
XP
Spec X’
X XP
Spec X’
X XP
Spec X’
X Comp
DP
XP
Spec X’
X NP
Spec X’
X
Spec X’
X Comp
DP
XP
explaining the facts
NP
22
Boskovic (2005)
Anti-Locality hypothesis
“movement shouldn’t be too short, it should at least cross a full phrasal boundary”
explaining the facts
23
Boskovic (2005)
DP
Spec D’
D NP
Adjunct NP
explaining the facts
N Compl
NP
DP
24
Boskovic (2005)
Serbo-Croatian doesn’t have covert DPs whereas English does.
explaining the facts
DP
Spec D’
NP
expensive NP
cars Compl
expensive NP
cars Compl
En
gli
sh
Ser
bo
-Cro
atia
n
NP
DP
Expensive he saw cars.
1. PIC
2. Anti-Loc
1. PIC
2. Anti-LocXP
NP
( )
25
Boskovic (2005)
Serbo-Croatian doesn’t have covert DPs whereas English does.
explaining the facts
Spec D’
friends of John friends of John
En
gli
sh
Ser
bo
-Cro
atia
nNP
DP
Who do you like friends of.
1. PIC
2. Anti-Loc
1. PIC
2. Anti-LocXP
NP
( )
26
Boskovic (2005)
If Boskovic is right there is no a priori reason for arguments to have a D projection.
This goes against Longobardi who assumes argumenthood requires the presence of a (covert or overt) D.
More in line with a type-shifting approach that does more in the semantics and less in the syntax.
relevance
27
Boskovic (2005)
If you’re interested in exploring this line further, you can visit Boskovic’s website (download section). He extends the ideas developed above to a great number of languages and a great deal of different constructions.
http://web2.uconn.edu/boskovic/
remark
28
Borer (2005)
Wants to pursue an alternative to type-shifting.
(i) I bought cookies.(ii) John bought ?(a) cookie.
both –s and a are countability markers; without them cookie would get a mass reading
(iii) Wo mai le quqi (Mandarin) I buy LE cookie(iv) Wo mai le yi ge quqi (Mandarin) I buy LE one CL cookie
29
Borer (2005)
syntax of a (count) indefinite on its existential reading:
[DPe [#Pa e [CLa e [NPgirl]]]]
Indefinites like a in English do double duty: they function as classifiers and counters.
They don’t necessarily do triple duty though: the existential force associated with them on their existential reading comes from existential closure over the variables in the C-command domain of the verb.
No need for type-shifting!
the enterprise
30
Borer (2005)
If you want to explore this line of thinking further, read Borer (2005) and make sure to complement it with Krifka (2004).
In name only ‘Bare NPs: Kind-referring, Indefinites, Both or Neither?’
31
32
Questions, answers and more questions...
33
Intermediate scope
How does intermediate scope differ from wide scope? My first thought is that arguments can be referential or not. How do we interpret this difference in the example of the toys?
34
Intermediate scope
Every boy didn’t want to play anymore with toys he had selected himself.
Every boy
Not
Toys
the short answer
35
Intermediate scope
Every boy didn’t want to play anymore with toys he had selected himself.
Widest-scope reading:x(toys(x)&y(boy(y)play(y,x))
There are toys that are such that all the boys don’t play with them.
Intermediate scope reading:y(boy(y)x(toys(x)&play(y,x))
For every boy there are toys that are such that he doesn’t play with them.
the short answer
( )
36
Intermediate scope
There are toys that are such that all the boys don’t play with them.
For every boy there are toys that are such that he doesn’t play with them.
the short answer
37
Intermediate scope
The existence of genuine intermediate/wide scope readings is not uncontroversial...
the longer answer
38
Intermediate scope
Every professor rewarded every student that read some book I had recommended.
reading 1: There is a book I recommended that is such that every professor rewarded every student that read that book.
reading 2: For every professor there is a book I recommended that is such that the professor rewarded every student that read that book.
reading 3: Every professor is such that he rewarded every student that was such that (s)he read a book I recommended.
the longer answer
WIDE
INTERMEDIATE
NARROW
??
39
Intermediate scope
Fodor & Sag (1982) and Kratzer (1998) assume indefinites have:
– a quantificational reading (like any other quantifiers they should then take scope locally)
– a referential reading(this gives the wide scope flavour)
The non-availability of intermediate scope in many contexts is an important argument in their favour.
Question: how do they analyze intermediate scope when it is available?
the longer answer
40
Intermediate scope
Kratzer (1998)Every man loves a woman.
The wide scope reading of a woman is a referential reading.
Kratzer assumes this reading should be analyzed in terms of choice functions.
A choice function picks a unique individual from any non-empty set in its domain.
In the case of a woman the set an individual is picked from is the set of women.
the longer answer
41
Intermediate scope
Every boy didn’t want to play anymore with toys he had selected himself.
toys he had selected himself
gives rise to a non-empty set of toys for each boy from this set a unique plurality of toys is picked co-variation with the boys ~ intermediate scope
flavour
the longer answer
42
Intermediate scope
Every professor rewarded every student that read some book I had recommended.
books I had recommended
only one set (the sets of book I recommended)
only one book can be picked
no co-variation ~ no intermediate scope flavour
the longer answer
43
Intermediate scope
Further reading:
Kratzer (1998)
www.semanticsarchive.net
the longer answer
44
The variation in design
Why was the Dutch setup different from the Mandarin? And which methods would you say was best, or is that language dependent? If so, how do you link the right method to the right language?
Why are the two experiments different with respect to the tests they make use of? How comparable are the results? Is it not preferable to use the same design across all languages?
45
The variation in design
Mandarin experiment
scenario test, continuation test
scenario test was well-established in the experimental literature
continuation test was new
desire to use what was in the literature but also to explore new possibilities
46
The variation in design
Dutch experiment
only continuation test
one kind of test for all conditions should make the results of all
conditions comparable
47
General setup (1)
Regarding a wide-scope item: if participants rate a scenario/continuation high on the scale, does this mean they really have the wide scope reading? And, would they also have this reading without the context? I can imagine reading a scenario/continuation and trying very hard to come up with some particular case in which it could somehow fit the context, just because I am in an experimental setting where an experimenter is expecting something from me.
48
General setup (1)
This is why the comparison with the NPI is so important: if what you suggest is true the same kind of accommodation should be applicable to the cases in which we used NPIs. It turns out though that NPIs are signifantly different from bare plurals.
It is true though that you can never be sure what it is you’re testing...
49
General setup (2)
Can it not be that participants see the context story as a whole (emphasis on meaning of the whole) instead of paying attention to the structure of one specific sentence (emphasis on form)? The scenario/continuation is always related to the context story and might thus be rated acceptable on a more global meaning level.
50
General setup (2)
Here too, the comparison with NPIs is absolutely crucial. There are some important caveats though...
51
From general to specific (1)
This question is about the Mandarin continuation test for wide scope over negation.
The last sentence of this dialogue indicates a specific person . The assumption is that if this sentence is accepted as natural, the bare noun in previous dialogue can have a wide scope reading. However, we should notice that the one but last sentence contains a question word (‘which’) that asks for a specific (singular) referent.
52
From general to specific (1)
The problem you sketch can be connected to the previous one:
Some people might just read the one but last sentence, see a question and find that the last sentence is an answer to this question. This would be fine for the ‘story as a whole’ and would jeopardize the validity of the experiment.
To avoid this we should avoid ‘which’ questions (which is not always easy...)
53
From general to specific (2)
I think item 3 (babysitting cousins) is too complex which makes the judgment very hard. Detecting an unacceptable continuation should be more easy, not a puzzle. Also the difference in complexity for all items should be somewhat similar.
54
From general to specific (2)
You are absolutely right...
In a follow-up experiment the complexity of all examples was reduced.
The only not so nice consequence of this is that the intermediate scope condition can no longer be tested. This is due to the fact that intermediate scope always requires a certain complexity.
55
From general to specific (3)
One test item per scope relation seems very little, even with 37 subjects. Perhaps the standard deviations will be less when you use at least two items per relation. And including NPIs, PPIs and indefinites, perhaps the fillers can be removed (in the interest of the subject).
56
From general to specific (3)
You are right but rather than dropping fillers I would concentrate on one condition.
Crucial here is that there is a maximum of items you can have. After consulting people in the field we limited the number of items to 16. The ideal filler / test item ratio is 1/1.
57
From general to specific (4)
I think it would be better (but admittedly less easy) to run the experiment on a screen with one context + answer per page. This way, the subjects cannot see the previous and next context and cannot compare them by looking back or forward. In my opinion it is also better that the subject does not know that he or she has 10 more pages to go until the end so they will focus on the item in front of them instead of skimming the text in order to get to the next item.
58
From general to specific (4)
As for the screen part I agree; this was also the way the English experiment was conducted (this was conducted over the Internet).
As for the progress part I don’t entirely agree; I’ve been involved in experiments where people didn’t tell how long it would take and after a while you don’t pay attention anymore. Knowing that there is an end to the assignment and knowing your progress also has its advantages.
59
From general to specific (5)
This question is about the materials for the Mandarin Scenario test.
The scenario is English. I am wondering whether the scenario was in English in the original experience. If so this might have influenced the results [...]
60
From general to specific (5)
I will have to talk to Min about this...
61
From general to specific (6)
What is the difference between the two rows called NPI > Negation in the Dutch results table?
62
From general to specific (6)
No real difference.
Because NPIs were so relevant to us we wanted to include two items that tested them.
63
What about other languages?
For follow-up research, would your first priority be to acquire ‘more of the same’ data from Dutch and Mandarin, maybe with improved questionnaires, to strengthen your results, or are you planning to look for more cross-linguistic coverage?
Is there any evidence that bare plurals in English are also able to take wide scope and not only narrow scope?
The conclusion states that the kinds-only view no longer has any advantages for Mandarin and Dutch. Do you think this could be extended to other languages, making it a universal?
64
What about other languages?
An important follow-up question was whether or not English bare plurals allow for wide scope readings.
This research was carried out by Min Que en Hanna de Vries. You can read about it on the project’s website (in Hanna’s Internship paper) or wait for the workshop.
Partial reruns are also being considered.
65
The results (1)
In the Dutch experiment, there is quite a big difference in the bare plural unscrambled and bare plural scrambled conditions. Can you explain the difference?
66
The results (1)
excluded -> chance level
difficult to find out why this is not so good...it is the case though that in the three experiments I ran on scope things always go wrong with books or people that we assumed everyone know
67
The results (2)
In the Mandarin experiment, the scenario test has three kinds of items: items that test narrowest, intermediate and widest scope. The results section gives a mean score of 4.09 for narrowest, 4.26 for intermediate and 4.85 for widest scope. If all three kind of items were presented in a way that steers the participant in the right direction, how do you explain the differences between these items?
68
The results (2)
Answers to this type of question are always tentative... (you never know what you’re testing and what could influence the data).
I looked at the English translation of the description of the narrow scope reading and perhaps this description might have been confusing...
69
70
The results (3)
To me, the results of the Mandarin research seem very fishy. Why do the results for narrow, intermediate and wide scope for MBNs look so similar to each other? It looks like the subjects accepted almost everything. How does this compare to the research by Yang (2001)?
71
The results (3)
These numbers indeed give the impression that anything goes...
The only reply I have to this is that at least in the fillers there were average scores at the lower end of the scale. This excludes the hypothesis that anything goes but leaves open the question whether this experiment tells us anything about scope.
72
The conclusions
The conclusion at the end is that the kind-only view no longer has any advantage over the ambiguity view. Does this make you biased between the two views, or do you feel the ambiguity view actually has advantages over the kind-only view?
73
The conclusions
If the kind-only view were right and if bare nominals should be analyzed as proper names of kinds we would expect them never to display scopal ambiguities. What we have tried to show is that they are scopally ambiguous. This would lead to the conclusion that the kind-only view needs a serious revision or is simply on the wrong track.
74
top related