Or what? Or what?: Challenging the speaker. NELS 46, Concordia Maria Biezma 1 Kyle Rawlins 2 1 University of Konstanz Department of Linguistics 2 Johns Hopkins University Cognitive Science Department Oct 17, 2015 (1) Or what responses A: Eat your vegetables! Paraphrase: What will happen if I don t eat them? (2) Imperatives in conditional disjunction A: Eat your vegetables or you won t get dessert. Paraphrase: If you don t eat them, you won t get dessert. 1 / 46 2 / 46 Starting point: or what alternative questions (Biezma & Rawlins 2012a) (3) (Scenario: Graduate student talking to his advisor.) Student: So, I came up with this idea for an analysis, but I don t know,... a. is this pragmatics? (polar question) b. is this semantics or pragmatics? (alternative question) c. is this semantics, pragmatics or what? (or what question) Or what questions are strategies for re-asking a big question. Büring-style D-tree: i (What kind of analysis is this?) is this semantics? is this semantics or what i? (is this pragmatics?) Our previous work (Biezma & Rawlins, 2012a) : what is anaphoric to a QUD, and stands in for alternatives in the QUD not explicitly described by disjunction. We will adopt this intuition here, many ways of spelling it out. 3 / 46 4 / 46 Today s talk Road map Main claims Conditional disjunction: exhaustive alternative possibilities for the future. Or what responses: re-ask a QUD for which the antecedent imperative provides one possible answer. Behavior of or what is anaphoric, as in other or what questions. Simple semantics for imperatives: denotation is prejacent proposition. (Following Condoravdi and Lauer) Semantic interaction of imperatives with disjunction is not construction-specific. 1 Or what responses and conditional disjunction 2 Imperatives 3 Imperatives and the QUD 4 Deriving the felicity conditions 5 On utterance-initial or 6 Conclusions 5 / 46 6 / 46 Constraints on conditional disjunction I Or what responses and conditional disjunction van der Auwera (1986): (4) Open the window or I ll kill you. (5) # Open the window or I ll kiss you....but directives are not the only case to look at! 7 / 46 8 / 46
Constraints on conditional disjunction II Constraints on conditional disjunction III Certain types of imperative interpretations blocked by disjunction: (6) a. Eat your vegetables or you won t get any dessert. (Directive) b. Oh! Please rain tomorrow or I ll have to go on that date. (Wish) c. Ok, close the window or I ll never hear the end of it. (Concessive permission) (7) (Host to his guest) Take a cookie (# or you ll regret it). (8) (Mother s farewell to her son) Have fun! (# or you ll regret it) (9) A: How can I get to Brooklyn? (Invitation / offer) (Disinterested/well wish) B: Take the A train (# or you ll have to travel for 3 hours). (Disinterested advice) (Note: these can be ok on other readings!) 9 / 46 10 / 46 Parallel with or what? (10) a. # Have fun or you will regret it. (Advice) b. # Take a cookie or you ll miss a great delicatessen. (Advice) (11) A: Take a cookie. (Invitation) (12) A: Have fun! (Disinterested/ well wish) (13) A: How can I get to Brooklyn? B: Take the A train. (Disinterested advice) A: # Or what? Generalizing Conditional disjunction / or what bad with groups III/IV interpretation: (14) Summary of Condoravdi & Lauer (2012) classes: Imperative use Speaker s Desire Addressee Inducement Group I: Directives, advice, pleas!! Group II: Wishes, concessive permissions! X Group III: Permissions, Invitations X! Group IV: Disinterested Advice X X Felicity generalization Disjunctive conditionals and or what responses are infelicitous unless they can be interpreted as expressing speaker desire. 11 / 46 12 / 46 Analysis of imperatives I: a preferential treatment Imperatives Our proposal, building off Eckardt (2011), Condoravdi & Lauer (2012); Lauer (2013). Imperatives express preferences. Conditional disjunction expresses speaker s preference ranking. Condoravdi & Lauer: (final version) (15) Let φ be the content proposition of a sentence with imperative marking!φ:!φ = φ (16) Imperative Convention (from Lauer 2013) When a speaker utters an imperative that has the content φ, he thereby commits himself to prefer φ to be actualized. The semantics of imperatives is minimal : it involves just the prejacent proposition. 13 / 46 14 / 46 Analysis of imperatives II: Eckardt s [!] 1. A syntax that constructionally licenses disjunction: Obligatory argument to [!]: finite clause in imperative mood (S imp ). Optional argument to [!]: or-phrase with or-p or S decl. 2. A future-oriented operator semantics for [!]: λq.λp. w[future(w 0, w) Circ(w 0, w) LEWIS-SIM(w 0, w) p(w) q(w)] 3. A hearer-oriented preferential presupposition The speaker believes that the addressee, taking a choice in all life future options λw.future(w 0, w) Circ(w 0, w) LEWIS-SIM(w 0, w) prefers p-worlds to q-worlds (See Eckardt 2011 for discussion on other proposals such as Kaufmann 2012) Challenges for Eckardt s proposal What to say about connection between or what responses and conditional disjunction? Felicity facts: what to do with cases where disjunction is bad? I.e. do we need to build in disjunction? (Separate entry for conjunctive imperatives.) Key ideas from Eckardt about conditional disjunction (i) Disjunction is of two ordinary propositions (no operator below disjunction). (ii) Expresses a preference ranking. 15 / 46 16 / 46
C&L s theory in more detail!φ = φ Participant s effective preference structure (EP): Agent s set of ranked propositions according to her/his (consistent) preferences. (Cf. Han s (2000) Plan Set and Portner s (2007) To Do Lists) By uttering an imperative the speaker (publicly) commits to having the prejacent proposition as the maximal element in her/his preference structure. C&L s theory in more detail II (17) Eat your vegetables! (Directive) (17) = λw.eat(vegetables, addressee, w) Pragmatics: The speaker commits to (17) being the maximal element in her/his EP at utterance time. From a position of authority, this is inferred to be a directive. (18) Take a candy! (Invitation) (18) = λw.take(candy, addressee, w) Pragmatics: The speaker commits to (18) being the maximal element in her/his EP at utterance time. The speaker is not in a position of authority, and can be inferred to be adopting what s/he perceives as what the addressee may prefer herself/himself. (S/he may be wrong!) 17 / 46 18 / 46 C&L s theory in conditional disjunction A sketch of where we are going: (19) Eat your vegetables or you won t have dessert. (19) = λw.eat(vegetables, addressee, w) have(dessert, addressee, w) Pragmatics: The alternatives are that either the addressee eats his vegetables, and the speaker commits to this being the maximal element in her/his EP, or that the addressee doesn t have dessert. Imperatives and the QUD 19 / 46 20 / 46 Conditional disjunction and Simons Topic Condition Imperatives can respond to QUDs Simons (2001): Topic Condition for disjunction in order for [a disjunction] d to have an identifiable discourse topic for P, there must be a question Q such that each disjunct of d is an answer to Q for P. (See also: Biezma & Rawlins (2012b) on alternative questions.) Topic Condition (amended): For an assertoric contribution to a discourse to be acceptable for a participant P, the contribution must have at least one identifiable discourse topic for P. (Topic Q(uestion) U(nder) D(iscussion)) (cf. Roberts 1996; Ginzburg 1996; Büring 2003 etc.) How do imperatives fit in? Diagnostic: responses to overt questions. (20) A: Where can I get a newspaper? B: Try the 7-eleven. 21 / 46 22 / 46 Imperatives must respond to QUDs Conditional disjunction and the Topic Condition QUDs/discourse topics can be quite broad. (Working assumption.) (22) A: (Covert: What are the alternatives for the future? ) B: Eat your vegetables or you won t get any desert. (21) A: (Covert: What are the alternatives for the future? / What will happen? ) A : (Covert: how could the meal proceed?) B: Eat your vegetables. Imperatives don t themselves provide an exhaustive answer (unless accepted). This is my preference for the future! Assumption: final falling pitch contour indicates exhaustivity(+exhaustification) with respect to the QUD. (cf. Zimmermann 2000; Biezma & Rawlins 2012b, but also Bartels 1999; Pruitt & Roelofsen 2013) each disjunct expresses a possible resolution of the QUD, and they jointly/mutually exhaust the space. Imperative disjunct: speaker preference. 23 / 46 24 / 46
Deriving conditional readings Interpreting conditional disjunction Conditional paraphrase follows from topic condition + exhaustivity: (23) Utterance: A imp or B decl a. A B (the B-worlds are A-worlds) & b. B A (the A-worlds are B-worlds) Asymmetric conditional paraphrase ( A B ) follows from preference for A. I prefer A. But if not A, then B. Van Der Auwera: (24) # Open the window or I ll kiss you. (What will happen in the future?) Open the window or I ll kiss you. Possible answers: {h c opens the window, s c kisses h c } s c s maximal effective preference 25 / 46 26 / 46 Extending to or what? Extending to or what? Or what asks about the remainder of the answer space! (25) A: Eat your vegetables! Paraphrase: If I don t eat my vegetables, what is the future of this dinner like? (26) A: Please, rain tonight! A: Or I ll have to go on that date. (27) QUD: What are the alternatives for the future? Response: One alternative is that you eat your vegetables, and the speaker prefers that. Or what?: What are the alternatives of the future in which I don t eat my vegetables? Büring-style D-tree: (What are the alternatives for the future?) A: That you eat your vegetables (a 2 )...(a n ) 27 / 46 28 / 46 Extending to or what? (27) QUD: What are the alternatives for the future? Response: One alternative is that you eat your vegetables, and the speaker prefers that. Or what?: What are the alternatives of the future in which I don t eat my vegetables? Deriving the felicity conditions Büring-style D-tree: i (What are the alternatives for the future?) Imperative + disjunction is licensed just in case speaker-dispreferred alternatives for the future would be relevant. A: That you eat your vegetables B: or what i? Group III/IV: exactly the case where they aren t! (a 2 )...(a n ) 28 / 46 29 / 46 Disinterested imperatives Mention-some questions and or what Impersonal advice: Disinterestedness/impersonality: temporarily adopting addressee s perspective issuer not in a position to decide what the alternatives are ( alternatives not relevant to discourse goals). (28) A: Try a cookie. (Invitation / offfer) (29) A: Have fun! (Disinterested wish) (30) A: How do I get to Brooklyn? B: Take the A train. A: # Or what? B: (Perplexed/confused by A s question) Er..., well, I guess it ll take you forever... Mention-some question: questioner only interested in best answers. Answer Adopts addressee s perspective. (van Rooy 2003 on the pragmatics of mention-some.) Or what: at the same time accepts the A-train option as the best one, but re-asks the same mention-some question for the best option. 30 / 46 31 / 46
Infelicity via pretense Disjunction leads to a preference ranking. Pretense used to force ranking on a hearer (and alternative is obvious): (31) Scenario: A is a mobster who discovers that B is an informant in his organization. A confronts B: a. A: Go on, rat, report me to the police. Implication: A has reasons to prefer the police alternative, despite obvious downsides. b. # A: Go on rat, report me to the police or nothing bad will happen to you. c. A: Go on rat, report me to the police. Utterance-initial or 32 / 46 33 / 46 Utterance-initial or A sketch of utterance-initial or Disjunction as a particle in utterance-initial position generally: (32) A: Eat your vegetables! B: Or you ll yell at me? (33) A: Eat your vegetables! (to B) C: Or you won t get any dessert. Compare: (34) A: Alfonso s not here. B: Or he s being very quiet. Particle or constraints: 1 The prejacent satisfies Simons Topic Condition (is aligned with the QUD). 2 At least one possible answer is given in prior discourse. 3 Default for mention-all questions: prejacent plus prior possible answers exhaust the QUD. Rising vs. falling intonation: Rising: request confirmation that prejacent is the correct way of exhaustifying the answer space. Falling: assert that prejacent is correct way of exhaustifying. Or what : pronominal/question version of rising intonation case. 34 / 46 35 / 46 Conclusions: the interaction of imperatives and disjunction Conclusions Ingredients of the analysis: Imperative marking: indicates a preference. Denotation: propositional content. Provides a possible resolution of alternatives about the future. Disjunction: ordinary disjunction that obeys the Topic Condition. (Compatible with a variety of analyses.) What: discourse pronoun to QUD/Topic. 36 / 46 37 / 46 Conclusions: a unified treatment of conditional disjunction and or what Summary of conditional disjunction Conditional disjunctions express two alternatives that are the possible answers to a QUD about the future, with the speaker preferring the imperative-marked alternative. Summary of or what or what response requests the remaining possible answers to a QUD about the future, taking the imperative antecedent utterance as one possible (preferred) resolution. Extensions and open questions We have said very little about the word order here: imperative-first constraint? Why is or what? restricted to future-oriented preference expressions? Conjunction: (35) Eat your vegetables! a. Or what? b. # And what? (Brian Buccola, p.c.) Negative imperatives: (36) Where can I get a sandwich? a. Don t go to the dining hall. b. Don t go to the dining hall, or you ll regret it. 38 / 46 39 / 46
Thank you! Appendix: #And what?: No more preferences than stated Acknowledgements For discussion of this topic we are grateful to Ana Arregui, Justin Bledin, Sven Lauer, and NELS reviewers. PDF handout can be temporarily found at: http://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/rawlins/nels2015/ (Or just google Kyle Rawlins and look for the link.) (37) A: Eat your vegetables! (Directive) B: # And what? (Brian Buccola, p.c.) Interpretation: From the alternatives for the future, you commit to my eating my vegetables being your maximal preference, and I ask what is the X such that X is your maximal preference (!) The speaker stated what her/his (maximal) preference was: if there was more than one, s/he would have stated it. The addressee is not justified in asking for what other preferences s/he may have. 40 / 46 41 / 46 Appendix:!And what?: On consequences Appendix: responses to non-imperatives (38) A: You ll need to get better, come on, eat your vegetables. B: And what? And I get more vitamin B? It s not vitamin B what I need. (39) Drop the gun. And what? said Latimer. We just forget about all this. And what? responses are good if they are interpreted as asking about consequences of the (antecedent) prejacent proposition being true. (40) A: You should eat your vegetables. (41) A: Alfonso might have gone. (42) A: I hope it doesn t rain tonight. B:? Or what? 42 / 46 43 / 46 Bibliography I van der Auwera, Johan. 1986. Conditionals and speech acts. In Elizabeth Traugott, Alice G. B. ter Meulen, Judy Reilly & Charles Ferguson (eds.), On Conditionals, 309 331. Cambridge University Press. Bartels, Christine. 1999. The intonation of English statements and questions. Garland Publishing. Biezma, María & Kyle Rawlins. 2012a. Or what? Presentation at Questions in Discourse, Frankfurt, March 7-9. Biezma, María & Kyle Rawlins. 2012b. Responding to alternative and polar questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 35. 261 406. Büring, Daniel. 2003. On D-trees, beans, and B-accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26. 511 545. Condoravdi, Cleo & Sven Lauer. 2012. Imperatives: Meaning and illocutionari force. In Christopher Piñón (ed.), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 9, 37 58. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss9/. Bibliography II Eckardt, Regine. 2011. Hands-up imperatives. In Ingo Reich, Eva Horch & Dennis Pauly (eds.), Sinn und Bedeutung 15, 209 224. Saarbrücken, Germany: Saarland University Press. Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1996. Dynamics and the semantics of dialogue. In J. Seligman (ed.), Language, Logic and Computation, Volume 1, CSLI Publications. Han, Chung-hye. 2000. The structure and interpretation of imperatives. Garland Publishing. Kaufmann, Magdalena. 2012. Interpreting Imperatives, vol. 88 Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Springer. Lauer, Sven. 2013. Towards a Dynamic Pragmatics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation. Portner, Paul. 2007. Imperatives and modals. Natural Language Semantics 15. 351 383. Pruitt, Kathryn & Floris Roelofsen. 2013. The interpretation of prosody in disjunctive questions. Linguistic Inquiry 44. 632 650. 44 / 46 45 / 46 Bibliography III Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics, 1998 revision. In Jae Hak Yoon & Andreas Kathol (eds.), OSUWPL vol. 49: Papers in Semantics, The Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics. van Rooy, Robert. 2003. Questioning to resolve decision problems. Linguistics and Philosophy 26. 727 763. Simons, Mandy. 2001. Disjunction and alternativeness. Linguistics and Philosophy 24. Zimmermann, Thomas Ede. 2000. Free choice disjunction and epistemic possibility. Natural Language Semantics 8. 255 290. 46 / 46