Non-grammaticalized number entails an exclusive interpretation of - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Non-grammaticalized number entails an exclusive interpretation of plural morphology Adam Liter A. Tess Huelskamp adam.liter@gmail.com huelska1@msu.edu Christopher C. Heffner Cristina Schmitt heffner@umd.edu schmit12@msu.edu Workshop on Linguistic and Cognitive Aspects of Quantification 2015 October 17, 2015 Liter et al. Non-grammaticalized number & plural October 17 – LCQ 2015 1 / 36

Introduction The question Why do certain quantificational elements have the interpretations that they have? Liter et al. Non-grammaticalized number & plural October 17 – LCQ 2015 2 / 36

Introduction Goal of the paper Examine to what extent inclusive/exclusive interpretations of the plural are the result of properties of the input. To do this, we use two versions of an artificial language that we will call Lablish I (Liter et al. 2014) and Lablish II. ◮ Lablish I, II, and English are qualitatively different: English has grammaticalized number; OBLIGATORY singular and plural distinctions. Liter et al. Non-grammaticalized number & plural October 17 – LCQ 2015 3 / 36

Introduction Goal of the paper Examine to what extent inclusive/exclusive interpretations of the plural are the result of properties of the input. To do this, we use two versions of an artificial language that we will call Lablish I (Liter et al. 2014) and Lablish II. ◮ Lablish I, II, and English are qualitatively different: English has grammaticalized number; OBLIGATORY singular and plural distinctions. Lablish I and II do NOT have grammaticalized number; OPTIONAL singular and plural distinctions, much like Korean, Japanese and Mandarin. Liter et al. Non-grammaticalized number & plural October 17 – LCQ 2015 3 / 36

Introduction Goal of the paper Examine to what extent inclusive/exclusive interpretations of the plural are the result of properties of the input. To do this, we use two versions of an artificial language that we will call Lablish I (Liter et al. 2014) and Lablish II. ◮ Lablish I, II, and English are qualitatively different: English has grammaticalized number; OBLIGATORY singular and plural distinctions. Lablish I and II do NOT have grammaticalized number; OPTIONAL singular and plural distinctions, much like Korean, Japanese and Mandarin. ◮ Lablish I and II are quantitatively different: Liter et al. Non-grammaticalized number & plural October 17 – LCQ 2015 3 / 36

Introduction Goal of the paper Examine to what extent inclusive/exclusive interpretations of the plural are the result of properties of the input. To do this, we use two versions of an artificial language that we will call Lablish I (Liter et al. 2014) and Lablish II. ◮ Lablish I, II, and English are qualitatively different: English has grammaticalized number; OBLIGATORY singular and plural distinctions. Lablish I and II do NOT have grammaticalized number; OPTIONAL singular and plural distinctions, much like Korean, Japanese and Mandarin. ◮ Lablish I and II are quantitatively different: Lablish I: 50% number-neutral bare nouns, 25% singular NPs and 25% plural NPs. Liter et al. Non-grammaticalized number & plural October 17 – LCQ 2015 3 / 36

Introduction Goal of the paper Examine to what extent inclusive/exclusive interpretations of the plural are the result of properties of the input. To do this, we use two versions of an artificial language that we will call Lablish I (Liter et al. 2014) and Lablish II. ◮ Lablish I, II, and English are qualitatively different: English has grammaticalized number; OBLIGATORY singular and plural distinctions. Lablish I and II do NOT have grammaticalized number; OPTIONAL singular and plural distinctions, much like Korean, Japanese and Mandarin. ◮ Lablish I and II are quantitatively different: Lablish I: 50% number-neutral bare nouns, 25% singular NPs and 25% plural NPs. Lablish II: 12.5% number-neutral bare nouns, 43.75% singular NPs and 43.75% plural NPs. Liter et al. Non-grammaticalized number & plural October 17 – LCQ 2015 3 / 36

Introduction About artificial language experiments What is bad about them: ◮ Artificial languages are artificial. ◮ The experiments are always L2 experiments. What is good about them: ◮ Artificial languages have controlled/cleaned up input. ◮ If we assume that the learner’s deviations from the input indicate learners’ own biases about natural language structure, then artificial language experiments may help us understand typological properties of natural languages as being imposed by the learning mechanisms. Liter et al. Non-grammaticalized number & plural October 17 – LCQ 2015 4 / 36

Introduction Artificial language paradigms and what we have learned from them Type I: Competition between typologically preferred and dispreferred properties/structures. ◮ Measurement: Mastery of the preferred/dispreferred properties/structures. ◮ Finding: Common/preferred properties/structures are learned faster and more easily. Liter et al. Non-grammaticalized number & plural October 17 – LCQ 2015 5 / 36

Introduction Artificial language paradigms and what we have learned from them Type I: Competition between typologically preferred and dispreferred properties/structures. ◮ Measurement: Mastery of the preferred/dispreferred properties/structures. ◮ Finding: Common/preferred properties/structures are learned faster and more easily. Type II: Probabilistic marking of a particular syntactic property (case). ◮ Measurement: Accuracy in matching frequencies in the input. ◮ Finding: Subjects tend to reorganize the system following some universal tendency (DOM) (Fedzechkina et al. 2012). Liter et al. Non-grammaticalized number & plural October 17 – LCQ 2015 5 / 36

Introduction Artificial language paradigms and what we have learned from them Type I: Competition between typologically preferred and dispreferred properties/structures. ◮ Measurement: Mastery of the preferred/dispreferred properties/structures. ◮ Finding: Common/preferred properties/structures are learned faster and more easily. Type II: Probabilistic marking of a particular syntactic property (case). ◮ Measurement: Accuracy in matching frequencies in the input. ◮ Finding: Subjects tend to reorganize the system following some universal tendency (DOM) (Fedzechkina et al. 2012). Type III: Optional use of forms that are in semantic competition and interpretational inferences (number). ◮ Measurement: Knowledge of optionality (the plural/singular distinction is marked optionally) and possible inferences in a novel context for the learner (downward entailing context). ◮ Finding: The input influences how plural is interpreted in downward entailing contexts. Liter et al. Non-grammaticalized number & plural October 17 – LCQ 2015 5 / 36

Roadmap Roadmap 1 About plurals 2 Explaining crosslinguistic differences 3 Study I and Study II Hypotheses Methods Results 4 Discussion Liter et al. Non-grammaticalized number & plural October 17 – LCQ 2015 6 / 36

About plurals About plurals: inclusive vs. exclusive interpretations The plural in English doesn’t always mean “more than one”. (1) John didn’t see friends last night. Liter et al. Non-grammaticalized number & plural October 17 – LCQ 2015 7 / 36

About plurals About plurals: inclusive vs. exclusive interpretations The plural in English doesn’t always mean “more than one”. (1) John didn’t see friends last night. English allows an inclusive interpretation of the plural in downward entailing contexts. Liter et al. Non-grammaticalized number & plural October 17 – LCQ 2015 7 / 36

About plurals About plurals: inclusive vs. exclusive interpretations The plural in English doesn’t always mean “more than one”. (1) John didn’t see friends last night. English allows an inclusive interpretation of the plural in downward entailing contexts. Korean plural does seem to always mean “more than one”. (2) con-un eceyspam chinkwu-tul-ul manna-ci anha-ss-ta. John- top last.night friend- pl - acc meet- nmlz neg - pst - decl ‘John didn’t see friends last night.’ Liter et al. Non-grammaticalized number & plural October 17 – LCQ 2015 7 / 36

About plurals About plurals: inclusive vs. exclusive interpretations The plural in English doesn’t always mean “more than one”. (1) John didn’t see friends last night. English allows an inclusive interpretation of the plural in downward entailing contexts. Korean plural does seem to always mean “more than one”. (2) con-un eceyspam chinkwu-tul-ul manna-ci anha-ss-ta. John- top last.night friend- pl - acc meet- nmlz neg - pst - decl ‘John didn’t see friends last night.’ Korean has an exclusive interpretation of the plural in all contexts. Liter et al. Non-grammaticalized number & plural October 17 – LCQ 2015 7 / 36

About plurals An account of these facts Sauerland et al. (2005) argues that the English plural is meaningless (“semantically unmarked”). Liter et al. Non-grammaticalized number & plural October 17 – LCQ 2015 8 / 36

About plurals An account of these facts Sauerland et al. (2005) argues that the English plural is meaningless (“semantically unmarked”). The exclusive interpretation in many English contexts is derived by an implicated presupposition (see also Sauerland 2008a). Liter et al. Non-grammaticalized number & plural October 17 – LCQ 2015 8 / 36