Positive vs. negative inversion exclamatives

taniguc7@msu.edu http://www.msu.edu/~taniguc7/, USA Sinn und Beudeutung 21 September 4-6, 2016

Inversion exclamatives (1) Boy, is that Pikachu grumpy! (positive inversion exclamative) (2) Isn t that Pikachu grumpy! (negative inversion exclamative)

Spoiler alert positive inversion exclamatives mean very negative inversion exclamatives mean I m certain that it s true

Outline 1. Data 2. The variability problem 3. Tools 4. Proposal 5. Conclusion

Data: Positive inversion exclamatives Positive inversion exclamatives (Pos-Ex) (3) Boy, is Ash immature! Positive inversion questions (4) Is Ash immature?

Data: Positive inversion exclamatives Gradability (5) Boy, is Ash whiny! (6) Man, are you a Pokémon fan! (7) # Wow, is that a raspberry!

Data: Positive inversion exclamatives Sincerity (8) Pejorative predicates a. Wow, are you an idiot! ( driving while playing a game on your phone?!) b. Man, is Machamp weird-looking! ( he s like a stony four-armed wrestler!!) (9) Meliorative predicates a. Boy, is he a genius! ( I can t believe he invented wireless phone chargers!) b. Damn, are you lucky! ( your exams were cancelled?!)

Data: Positive inversion exclamatives Sentence-initial particle (10) Boy/man/damn/wow do you type fast! (11) # Do you type fast!

Data: Negative inversion exclamatives Negative inversion exclamatives (Neg-Ex) (12) Isn t Ash immature! Negative inversion questions (13) Isn t Ash immature?

Data: Negative inversion exclamatives Gradability (14) Isn t Ash whiny! (15) Aren t you a Pokémon fan! ( you only know Pikachu!) (16) (Well) isn t that a raspberry! ( how very red and plump!)

Data: Negative inversion exclamatives Sincerity (17) Pejorative predicates a. Aren t you an idiot! ( driving while playing a game on your phone?!) b. Isn t Machamp weird-looking! ( he s like a stony four-armed wrestler!!) (18) Meliorative predicates a. Isn t he a genius! ( he tried to charge his phone in the microwave?!) b. Aren t you lucky! ( 5 exams in one day!)

Pejorativity (19) (Free upgrade to business class on an international flight.) a. Boy, is this fantastic! b. # Well isn t this fantastic! (20) (You spill coffee right before a job interview.) a.? Boy, is this fantastic! b. Well isn t this fantastic!

Gloat (21) Boy, is he an idiot! (22) Isn t he an idiot!

Outline 1. Data 2. The variability problem 3. Tools 4. Proposal 5. Conclusion

The question approach (Zanuttini & Portner 2003) WH-Exclamatives (WH-Ex) Exclamatives have a question semantics Domain widening

The question approach (23) 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

The question approach Some issues: How do you widen the domain for yes/no questions? {p, p} What would be the difference between a Pos-Ex and Neg-Ex?

The degree approach (Rett 2011) In a nutshell: Silent operator e-force says I did not expect that high a degree If there is no degree argument, you can give it one with m-op e.g., What desserts he baked! (individual) e.g., Wow, did Sue win that race! (eventuality) (24) wow did Sue m-op win that race! = λd. e[ win(s, r, e) µ(e) = d ] (25) Existential closure via e-force: a. d. e[win(s, r, e) µ(e) = d ] b. + illocutionary force I didn t expect that d D

The degree approach (Rett 2011) Some issues: Not clear why m-op can t apply to certain eventualities (26) a. # Boy, is she married! b. # Boy, did he hold that puppy! Not clear what m-op would target in Neg-Ex s

Outline 1. Data 2. The variability problem 3. Tools 4. Proposal 5. Conclusion

The question cousins (27) Is Ash immature? (positive polar question) (28) Isn t Ash immature? (negative polar question)

Positive polar question Did Ash win? (29) {win(a), win(a)}

Negative polar question Speaker bias (Romero & Han 2004): (30) Didn t Ash win? I think Ash won, but I want to make sure (31) [On a demographic questionnaire:] a. Do you have children? b. # Don t you have children?

Negative polar question Really and verum focus (Höhle 1992): (32) a. Ash really won b. Ash DID win (33) verum/really = λpλw. w Epi spkr(w) Conv spkr(w)[p CG w ] (modified, Romero & Han (2004)) a. Epi spkr (w) = set of worlds that conform to the speaker s beliefs in w b. Conv spkr (w) = set of worlds that conform to the speaker s conversational goals in w (i.e., the worlds in which there is maximal true information)

Negative polar question Really and verum focus (Höhle 1992): (34) a. Ash really won b. Ash DID win (35) verum/really = λpλw. w Epi spkr(w) Conv spkr(w)[p CG w ] (modified, Romero & Han (2004)) a. Epi spkr (w) = set of worlds that conform to the speaker s beliefs in w b. Conv spkr (w) = set of worlds that conform to the speaker s conversational goals in w (i.e., the worlds in which there is maximal true information) p should be in the common ground

Negative polar question Really and verum focus (Höhle 1992): (36) a. Ash really won b. Ash DID win (37) verum/really = λpλw. w Epi spkr(w) Conv spkr(w)[p CG w ] (modified, Romero & Han (2004)) a. Epi spkr (w) = set of worlds that conform to the speaker s beliefs in w b. Conv spkr (w) = set of worlds that conform to the speaker s conversational goals in w (i.e., the worlds in which there is maximal true information) p should be in the common ground for-sure-cg(p)

Negative polar question (38) didn t Ash win? = {for-sure-cg(win(a), for-sure-cg(win(a))} { defined iff p Epi (39) for-sure-cg(p) is: spkr(w) x.p Epi x(w) undefined otherwise (Romero & Han 2004)

Negative polar question (40) didn t Ash win? = {for-sure-cg(win(a), for-sure-cg(win(a))} { defined iff p Epi (41) for-sure-cg(p) is: spkr(w) x.p Epi x(w) undefined otherwise (Romero & Han 2004) I thought that p should be in the common ground but someone is acting like it shouldn t be. Which is it?

McCready (2008) s man (42) Man, Ash is immature! Ash is very immature (and I have feelings about this)

McCready (2008) s man (43) sd = λpλd.p(d) (McCready 2008) (44) man = λd d, s,t. d.d(d) d standard C (D) (modified from McCready (2008))

Outline 1. Data 2. The variability problem 3. Tools 4. Proposal 5. Conclusion

Summary of puzzles and tools Puzzles 1. Pos-Ex s are incompatible with non-gradable predicates 2. Neg-Ex s can take gradable and non-gradable predicates 3. but they really favor a pejorative reading and evoke gloat

Proposal: A preview Pos-Ex s involve degree intensification ( very) Neg-Ex s involve verum intensification (emphasis of truth) Their semantics will derive from their question counterparts

The common thread (45) ex-op = λpλw.{p, p} qud w p(w) Turn p into a polar question, and simultaneously answer affirmatively

The common thread (46) ex-op = λpλw.{p, p} qud w p(w) Turn p into a polar question, and simultaneously answer affirmatively Accomplishment: Exclamatives look like questions but they aren t really questions

Analysis: Positive Inversion Exclamatives (47) is Ash immature! = ex-op Ash is immature = λw.{immature(a), immature(a)} qud w immature w (a) Is Ash immature? Yes, Ash is immature.

Analysis: Positive Inversion Exclamatives (48) sd (ex-op Ash is immature) = λd [λw.{immature(a), immature(a)} qud w immature w (a)](d) λdλw.immature w (a)(d) the set of degrees that satisfy immature(a)

Analysis: Positive Inversion Exclamatives (49) boy ( sd ex-op Ash is immature ) = d.λw.immature w (a)(d) d standard C (immature) Ash is very immature

Analysis: Positive Inversion Exclamatives (50) boy ( sd ex-op Ash is immature ) = d.λw.immature w (a)(d) d standard C (immature) Ash is very immature Accomplishment: Pos-Ex s are incompatible with non-gradable predicates

End Result: Positive Inversion Exclamatives (51) Boy, is Ash immature! Is Ash immature? Yes, Ash is immature. Very immature.

Analysis: Negative Inversion Exclamatives (52) isn t Ash immature! = verum Ash is immature λw. w epi spkr (w) conv spkr (w)[immature(a) CG w ] for-sure-cg(ash is immature) we should add Ash is immature to the common ground

Analysis: Negative Inversion Exclamatives (53) isn t Ash immature! = verum Ash is immature λw. w epi spkr (w) conv spkr (w)[immature(a) CG w ] for-sure-cg(ash is immature) we should add Ash is immature to the common ground + Presupposition: Someone doesn t think it should be added to the common ground ( let me make this clear to someone )

Analysis: Negative Inversion Exclamatives (54) ex-op verum Ash is immature = λw.{for-sure-cg(immature w (a)), for-sure-cg(immature w (a))} qud w for-sure-cg(immature w (a))

Analysis: Negative Inversion Exclamatives (55) ex-op verum Ash is immature = λw.{for-sure-cg(immature w (a)), for-sure-cg(immature w (a))} qud w for-sure-cg(immature w (a)) Accomplishment: The negation contributes something

Analysis: Negative Inversion Exclamatives (56) ex-op verum Ash is immature = λw.{for-sure-cg(immature w (a)), for-sure-cg(immature w (a))} qud w for-sure-cg(immature w (a)) Accomplishment: The negation contributes something Accomplishment: You can emphasize the truth of non-gradable things too (e.g., totes (definitely) a raspberry (Taniguchi forthcoming))

End Result: Negative Inversion Exclamatives (57) Isn t Ash immature! Should we add Ash is immature to the common ground? Oh yes, we should add Ash is immature to the common ground.

End Result: Negative Inversion Exclamatives (58) Isn t Ash immature! Should we add Ash is immature to the common ground? Oh yes, we should add Ash is immature to the common ground. Accomplishment? : Source of gloat? ( Someone doesn t agree with me but let me add it to the CG anyway )

Some consequences (59) [Context: In reference to professional sumo wrestlers] a.?? Aren t they fat! b. Boy, are they fat! (60) [Context: In reference to plump strangers] a. Aren t they fat! b. Boy, are they fat!

Source of pejorativity?

Source of pejorativity? Nasty things happen at the left edge:

Source of pejorativity? Nasty things happen at the left edge: (67) Isn t he an expert! (vs. # Is he not an expert!)

Source of pejorativity? Nasty things happen at the left edge: (70) Isn t he an expert! (vs. # Is he not an expert!) (71) Some expert he is! (vs. He is some expert alright!) (Anderson 2016)

Source of pejorativity? Nasty things happen at the left edge: (73) Isn t he an expert! (vs. # Is he not an expert!) (74) Some expert he is! (vs. He is some expert alright!) (Anderson 2016) (75) Expert-schmexpert, his facts are half-assed! (Grohmann & Nevins 2004) (vs. # He is an expert-schmexpert)

Outline 1. Data 2. The variability problem 3. Tools 4. Proposal 5. Conclusion

Accomplishments Inversion exclamatives look like questions so they have a question semantics Pos-Ex s and Neg-Ex s are different Their semantics derive from their question counterpart and other existing tools Specifically: Pos-Ex s: The culprit is boy/man Neg-Ex s: The culprit is verum/n t (degree intensification) (epistemic intensification)

Big picture Exclamatives as a natural class Various modes of intensification

Acknowledgements Big thanks to: Marcin Morzycki Alan Munn Cristina Schmitt Mutsuko Endo-Hudson Jessica Rett Curt Anderson Cara Feldscher, Josh Herrin, Adam Gobeski, and the rest of my colleagues at MSU

Selected references Anderson, Curt. 2016. Kinds, epistemic indefinites, and some-exclamatives. Presentation at Sinn und Bedeutung 21. Edinburgh, Scotland. Grohmann, Kleanthes K & Andrew Ira Nevins. 2004. On the syntactic expression of pejorative mood. Linguistic variation yearbook 4(1). 143 179. Höhle, Tilman N. 1992. Ueber verum-fokus im deutschen. In Informationsstruktur und grammatik, 112 141. Springer. McCready, Eric. 2008. What man does. Linguistics and Philosophy 31(6). 671 724. Rett, Jessica. 2011. Exclamatives, degrees and speech acts. Linguistics and Philosophy 34(5). 411 442. Romero, Maribel & Chung Han. 2004. On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(5). 609 658. Taniguchi, Ai. forthcoming. Negative inversion exclamatives, focus, and speaker commitment. Proceedings of the 24th Conference of the Student Organisation of Linguistics in Europe (ConSOLE XXIV). Zanuttini, Raffaella & Paul Portner. 2003. Exclamative clauses: At the syntax-semantics interface. Language 39 81.