Negative Inversion Exclamatives

Transcription

1 Semantics Workshop of the American Midwest and Prairies October 31st, 2015

2 Roadmap 1. The phenomenon 2. 2 empirical puzzles 3. 2 clues 4. Analysis proposal

3 The phenomenon (1) Negative inversion exclamatives (Neg-Ex) a. Isn t [THAT] F spooky! b. Aren t [YOU] F a creep! c. Doesn t [MINA S] F costume look scary! (2) Negative inversion questions (Neg-Q) a. Isn t that spooky? b. Aren t you a creep? c. Doesn t Mina s costume look scary?

4 The phenomenon (3) Negative inversion exclamatives (Neg-Ex) a. A: Isn t [THAT] F spooky! b.? B: That is spooky. (4) Negative inversion questions (Neg-Q) a. A: Isn t that spooky? b. B: That is spooky. What is the (Pow!)?

5 Puzzle 1: Non-gradable nouns (5) a.? Isn t [THAT] F a pumpkin! b.? Isn t [SHE] F a teacher! c.? Aren t [YOU] F a linguist! (6) a. What a pumpkin! b. What a teacher! c. What a linguist!

6 Puzzle 1: Non-gradable nouns (7) a. (I m picking out a pumpkin to carve, and one of them is particularly large, smooth, orange, and beautiful.) Isn t [THAT] F a pumpkin! b. (Jane is always explaining things to people and quizzing them afterwards.) Isn t [SHE] F a teacher! c. (Bob is always asking for grammaticality judgments, even during department meetings.) Aren t [YOU] F a linguist!

7 The question approach Zanuttini and Portner (2003): WH-Exclamatives (WH-Ex) Exclamatives have a question semantics Domain widening (Pow!) = Inclusion of an exceptional alternative

8 The question approach (8) What things John eats! = John eats poblanos John eats serranos John eats jalapenos John eats poblanos John eats serranos John eats jalapenos John eats habaneros

9 The question approach (9) Isn t [THAT] F spooky! (10)? Isn t [THAT] F a pepper! Some issues: What are the alternatives and their widened domain? Why don t non-gradable nouns work for Neg-Ex?

10 Puzzle 2: Focus Neg-Ex s require subject focus: (11) a. Isn t [HE/JOHN/THIS] F a mess! (Focus) b. * Isn t he/john/this a mess! (No focus) (12) a. * Isn t that [SPOOKY] F! b. * [AREN T] F you a creep! c. * Doesn t Mina s costume [LOOK] F scary!

11 Summary of puzzles Things that I need to explain: 1. Neg-Ex s aren t great with non-gradable nouns, and when you do coerce an interpretation, it s not exactly the same meaning as WH-Ex s 2. Neg-Ex s require focus on the subject

12 Preview of explanation Things that will help me explain the puzzles: 1. Speaker commitment also does funny things with non-gradable nouns, and is a notion of intensification slightly different from pure degree extremity (i.e., very) 2. There s a particular type of question that requires subject focus

13 Preview of explanation Things that will help me explain the puzzles: 1. Speaker commitment also does funny things with non-gradable nouns, and is a notion of intensification slightly different from pure degree extremity (i.e., very) 2. There s a particular type of question that requires subject focus

14 Clue 1: Speaker commitment (13) Beltrama (2014) a. The tank is totally full (Lexical scale) The tank is full to the brim b. We totally won the game (Speaker-oriented scale) I m telling you, we won the game

15 Clue 1: Speaker commitment (14) a. The tank is totes full (Speaker-oriented scale) I m telling you, the tank is full b. We totes won the game (Speaker-oriented scale) I m telling you, we won the game

16 Clue 1: Speaker commitment (15) A customer s beer glass is 90% full. A: Um, my glass is not full, my beer wasn t poured to the brim. B: # It s totally full, don t complain! (Lexical scale) B : It s totes full, don t complain! (Speaker-oriented scale)

17 Clue 1: Speaker commitment (16) A: Curt didn t thank Mina for the gift. B: That s rude. I suppose. B :? That is totes/totally rude. I suppose. B :? Isn t [THAT] F rude! I suppose. (17) A: Dinner is at 4pm. B: That s very early for dinner. I suppose. B :? That is totes/totally early for dinner. I suppose. B :? Isn t [THAT] F early for dinner! I suppose.

18 Clue 1: Speaker commitment (18) a. Isn t [THAT] F spooky! b. That is totes spooky (19) a. Isn t [THAT] F a pumpkin! ( pumpkin snob reading) b. That is totes a pumpkin (QUD: Pumpkin or not?)

19 Preview of explanation Things that will help me explain the puzzles: 1. Speaker commitment also does funny things with non-gradable nouns, and is a notion of intensification slightly different from pure degree extremity (i.e., very) 2. There s a particular type of question that requires subject focus

20 Clue 2: Question types (20) a. Is [JOHN] F a doctor? Or is [BILL] F a doctor? (Thetic) WHO is P? Is the situation that JOHN is a doctor, or that BILL is a doctor? b. Is John a [DOCTOR] F? Or is John a [LAWYER] F? (Categorical) x is WHAT? We have John; do we put him in the DOCTOR category, or the LAWYER category? (21) a. * Is John a [DOCTOR] F? Or is Bill a [DOCTOR] F? b. * Is [JOHN] F a doctor? Or is [JOHN] F a lawyer?

21 Summary Informal explanation of the puzzles: 1. Neg-Ex s express the speaker s high commitment to the proposition, and it s weird to commit yourself to the categorization of things that are objectively defined (i.e., are ungradable) 2. In a Neg-Ex, the subject must be focused because it is underlyingly a thetic question

22 Proposal (22) Ex-Op = λf <e,st>.λy.λw.f(y) {p : x[p = f(x)]} (23) Isn t [THIS] F spooky! s, t e this i e, s, t e, s, t, e, s, t Ex-Op 1 e, s, t s, t e t i isn t e, s, t e, s, t spooky

23 Proposal (24) a. (isn t) spooky = λx.λw.spooky(w)(x) b. t i (isn t) spooky = λw.spooky(w)(x) c. 1 t i (isn t) spooky = λx.λw.spooky(w)(x) d. Ex-Op 1 t i (isn t) spooky = λy.λw.spooky(w)(y) {p : x[p = λw.spooky(w)(x)]} e. this i Ex-Op 1 t i (isn t) spooky = λw.spooky(w)(this) {p : x[p = λw.spooky(w)(x)]}

24 Proposal The (Pow!): (25) EXCL / totally = λp a [µ(p)(s) = max(µ)] c (26) Isn t this spooky!: t a EXCL(Isn t this spooky!): t c EXCL: < t a, t c > Isn t this spooky!: t a Informally put: Isn t this spooky! generates the question What is spooky, and answers this but not just this thing definitely this thing.

25 The big picture Language has various ways of encoding extraordinariness ((Pow!)) in language Neg-Ex s at least don t have a very interpretation Current theories of exclamatives are minimally underequipped for capturing the variability in the types of interpretations available in different types of exclamatives What is this category, then?

26 Acknowledgements Big thanks to: Marcin Morzycki, Alan Munn, Cristina Schmitt, Mutsuko Endo-Hudson MSU Semantics Group: Curt Anderson, Adam Gobeski, Gabe Rodriguez, Cara Feldscher, Abhi Parekh, Josh Herrin, Ai Kubota, Alicia Parrish, Kay Ann Schlang Nick Fleisher, Tim Hunter, Kyle Rawlins SWAMP 2015 organizers

27 Some lingering issues 1. Is this analysis extendable to other exclamative types? 2. Parasitic scope? 3. What s with the negation? 4. Sarcasm and gloat 5. Crosslinguistic implications

28 References Beltrama, A. (2014). From totally dark to totally old: The formal semantics of subjectification. Talk presented at Sinn und Bedeutung, 19. Rett, J. (2011). Exclamatives, degrees and speech acts. Linguistics and Philosophy, 34(5): Zanuttini, R. and Portner, P. (2003). Exclamative clauses: At the syntax-semantics interface. Language, pages

29 Appendix 1: Degree approach Rett (2011): (27) M-Op: λdλpλx.p(x) µ(x) = d (28) What desserts John baked! a. = λd.λx.desserts (x) µ(x) = d b. = λd. x[baked (j, x) desserts (x) µ(x) = d]

30 Appendix 1: Degree approach (29) E-Force(p), uttered by s C, is appropriate in a context C if p is salient and true in w C. When appropriate, E-Force(p) counts as an expression that s C had not expected that p. p = x[baked (j, x) desserts (x) µ(x) = d ] E-Force(p) counts as an expression if d such that s C had not expected that d D Existential closure via E-Force: d. x[baked (j, x) desserts (x) µ(x) = d ] + Illocutionary force speaker didn t expect p