Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References A comp mpositional ositional analysis analysis of ap ap and verbal and verbal predicates redicates in in Haitian Haitian Cre Creole ole Formal Approaches to Creole Linguistics 4 Paris, 6-7 November 2014 Bridget Cople Bridget Copley bridget.copley@sfl.cnrs.fr SFL (CNRS/Paris 8) 1/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Factativity Proposal ap References Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole 2/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Factativity Proposal ap References Factativity (1) a. V` edye bati yon kay. V` edye build house ‘V` edye built a house.’ b. Jan kouri pandan de z` e tan. Jan run pendant two hour time ‘Jan ran for two hours.’ c. Mari k` onn` en Jan. Mari know Jan ‘Mari knows Jan.’ “Factativity” (Welmers and Welmers, 1968): bare eventives are interpreted in the past while bare statives are interpreted in the present (more complicated than that, of course, but it will do for a starting point). HC examples from Dechaine (1991), Lefebvre (1996); also (and thanks for discussion to) Herby Glaude, Renauld Govain. Thanks too to students at l’Universit´ e d’Etat d’Ha¨ ıti and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr. 3/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Factativity Proposal ap References ap ap(r)(e) < Fr. apr` es (Damoiseau, 1994; Lefebvre, 1996) (2) a. V` edye ap bati yon kay. V` edye ap build house ‘V` edye is building a house.’ b. Jan ap kouri. Jan ap kouri ‘Jan is running.’ c. Mari ap k` onn` en Jan. Mari ap know Jan ‘Mari will know Jan.’ (Lefebvre (1996) 12) (3) Mari (a-)(v)a malad. Mari fut malade ‘Mari will be sick’ (Lefebvre (1996): 13) Spears (1990); Lefebvre (1996): The future with ap is definite/near/certain future, (a)-(v)a is indefinite/not near/not as certain. 4/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Factativity Proposal ap References ◮ Spears 1990, Lefebvre 1996: Progressive ap and future ap are two different lexical items. ◮ Dechaine 1991: If so, then it must additionally be explained why progressive ap takes only eventives while future ap takes only statives. ◮ Also, if there are two versions of ap , the similar temporal “d´ ecalage”/“compensation” (Damoiseau 1994) between eventives and statives is explained one way for non- ap sentences and a different way for ap sentences. ◮ Still needed: morphosyntactic evidence as to whether there are two different syntactic positions for ap with eventives or statives. Better: a unitary analysis of ap 5/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Factativity Proposal ap References (4) hypothesis 1: [ [ap] ] = progressive, “bare” eventives have a null perfective morpheme ⇒ [ [ap + stative] ] = progressive stative X [ [ap + eventive] ] = progressive eventive � 6/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Factativity Proposal ap References (4) hypothesis 1: [ [ap] ] = progressive, “bare” eventives have a null perfective morpheme ⇒ [ [ap + stative] ] = progressive stative X [ [ap + eventive] ] = progressive eventive � (5) hypothesis 2: [ [ap] ] = future, “bare” eventives have a null perfective morpheme ⇒ [ [ap + stative] ] = future stative � [ [ap + eventive] ] = future eventive X 6/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Factativity Proposal ap References (4) hypothesis 1: [ [ap] ] = progressive, “bare” eventives have a null perfective morpheme ⇒ [ [ap + stative] ] = progressive stative X [ [ap + eventive] ] = progressive eventive � (5) hypothesis 2: [ [ap] ] = future, “bare” eventives have a null perfective morpheme ⇒ [ [ap + stative] ] = future stative � [ [ap + eventive] ] = future eventive X (6) hypothesis 3: [ [ap] ] = progressive, eventives are inherently perfective ⇒ [ [ap + stative] ] = progressive stative X [ [ap + eventive] ] = progressive perfective X 6/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Factativity Proposal ap References (4) hypothesis 1: [ [ap] ] = progressive, “bare” eventives have a null perfective morpheme ⇒ [ [ap + stative] ] = progressive stative X [ [ap + eventive] ] = progressive eventive � (5) hypothesis 2: [ [ap] ] = future, “bare” eventives have a null perfective morpheme ⇒ [ [ap + stative] ] = future stative � [ [ap + eventive] ] = future eventive X (6) hypothesis 3: [ [ap] ] = progressive, eventives are inherently perfective ⇒ [ [ap + stative] ] = progressive stative X [ [ap + eventive] ] = progressive perfective X (7) hypothesis 4: [ [ap] ] = future, eventives are inherently perfective ⇒ [ [ap + stative] ] = future stative � [ [ap + eventive] ] = future + perfective X 6/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Situation sequences Proposal An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form References Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms Proposal 7/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Situation sequences Proposal An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form References Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms Proposal: change the semantic model so that we can take advantage of the eventive-stative d´ ecalage of the factative effect to explain ap . The basic meanings will be roughly as in hypothesis 4 in that ([ [ap] ] = “future”, eventives are inherently “perfective”) but “future” and “perfective” will be modeled completely differently from usual. We will introduce the idea of a situation sequence which will allow us to construct appropriate logical forms for factative verbal predicates and ap . Much will depend on how these situation sequences are intepreted in the conceptual system. 8/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Situation sequences Proposal An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form References Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms Situation sequences Situations are taken to be representations of individuals and their property attributions in a particular slice of space-time. We define a sequence of situation arguments with index n = . . . -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 . . . to represent the sequence of situations in the world that we are talking about: (8) . . . , (s − 2 ), (s − 1 ), s 0 , (s 1 ), (s 2 ), . . . (9) s − 1 s 0 s 1 s 2 We also define pred(ecessor) and suc(cessor) functions for any s n : (10) a. pred (s n ) = s n − 1 b. suc (s n ) = s n +1 9/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Situation sequences Proposal An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form References Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms Analysis of factativity at the level of logical form (11) a. Stative predicates: [ [Mari k` onn` en Jan] ](s) = 1 iff Mari-know-Jan (s) b. Eventive predicates: [ [V` edye bati yon kay] ](s) = 1 iff V` edye-build-a-house ( pred (s)) (the predicate V` edye bati yon kay � = the property V` edye-build-a-house !) Let → designate an event and • designate a state. (12) a. [ [ Mari k` en Jan ] ](s 0 ) b. [ [ V` edye bati yon kay ] ](s 0 ) c. [ [ Jan kouri ] ](s 0 ) onn` V` Mari-know-Jan edye-build-a-house Jan-run s 0 s − 1 s 0 s − 1 s 0 10/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Situation sequences Proposal An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form References Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms Analysis of ap at the level of logical form (13) [ [ap] ] = λ p λ s . p(suc(s)) (14) a. [ [ Mari ap k` en Jan ] ](s 0 ) b. [ [ V` edye ap bati yon kay ] ](s 0 ) c. [ [ Jan ap kouri ] ](s 0 ) onn` V` Mari-know-Jan edye-build-a-house Jan-run s 0 s 1 s 0 s 1 s 0 11/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Situation sequences Proposal An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form References Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms So far this is only a partial analysis because the denotations given here only give the location in the sequence, not other aspectual meaning such as: ◮ Perfective/resultative, n = -1: Why is the result state in bare eventives still ongoing at the utterance time? (15) Mwen p` edi lin` et mwen. I lose glasses my ‘I lost my glasses (and they’re still lost).’ ◮ Progressive/stative, n = 0: Why is there a progressive reading when n = 0 for eventives, but a regular stative reading when n = 0 for statives? ◮ Near future stative, n = 1: Can we explain what it means to be a “near future” of this kind? Need: conceptual interpretation of these sequences. 12/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Situation sequences Proposal An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form References Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms Claim: situation sequences are interpreted as causal chains in a particular fashion. (16) a. Situation sequences interpreted as causal chains: For all n, s n is a directly causing situation to s n +1 b. Historical necessity: Nothing intervenes from s − 1 to s 0 c. Open future: Something may intervene from s 0 to s 1 d. Localized closed world assumption: The speaker makes the assumption that they have represented everything relevant in their model of the world, though this assumption is defeasible. 13/25
Recommend
More recommend
