Q-veridicality V w V w Jo knew whether Bo was alive Jo knew the true answer to “was Bo alive?” A verb V is Q- non veridical if it is not Q-veridical. 16 (13) Q x Q x ans w A verb V is Q-veridical iff x Q (12) Two notions of veridicality P-veridicality A verb V is (P-)veridical iff ∀ x , p : � V � w @ ( x , p ) → p ( w @ ) Jo knew that Bo was alive → Bo was alive
Jo knew whether Bo was alive Jo knew the true answer to “was Bo alive?” A verb V is Q- non veridical if it is not Q-veridical. (12) (13) 16 Two notions of veridicality P-veridicality A verb V is (P-)veridical iff ∀ x , p : � V � w @ ( x , p ) → p ( w @ ) Jo knew that Bo was alive → Bo was alive Q-veridicality A verb V is Q-veridical iff ∀ x , Q : � V � w @ ( x , Q ) → � V � w @ ( x , ans w @ ( Q ))
(12) (13) 16 Two notions of veridicality P-veridicality A verb V is (P-)veridical iff ∀ x , p : � V � w @ ( x , p ) → p ( w @ ) Jo knew that Bo was alive → Bo was alive Q-veridicality A verb V is Q-veridical iff ∀ x , Q : � V � w @ ( x , Q ) → � V � w @ ( x , ans w @ ( Q )) Jo knew whether Bo was alive → Jo knew the true answer to “was Bo alive?” A verb V is Q- non veridical if it is not Q-veridical.
High correlation between Q-veridicality and P-veridicality Q-veridicality is derived from P-veridicality 17 Veridicality and interpretation Spector & Egré’s (2015) observation Spector & Egré’s (2015) proposal
V w V w But if a verb V is P-veridical, then... V w V w V w p w x p w p Q p x p Q p 18 x p x p x p Q p x Q x (cf. Hamblin 1973, Groenendijk & Stokhof 1984, Beck & Rullmann 1999, Lahiri 2002) attitude holder to some possible (complete) answer to Q When a Q-agnostic predicate takes a question Q , it relates an Veridicality and interpretation Spector & Egré’s (2015) formalization
When a Q-agnostic predicate takes a question Q , it relates an attitude holder to some possible (complete) answer to Q (cf. Hamblin 1973, Groenendijk & Stokhof 1984, Beck & Rullmann 1999, Lahiri 2002) 18 Veridicality and interpretation Spector & Egré’s (2015) formalization ∀ x : � V � w @ ( x , Q ) → ∃ p ∈ Q : � V � w @ ( x , p ) But if a verb V is P-veridical, then... [ ∀ x , p ′ : ] � V � w @ ( x , p ′ ) → p ′ ( w @ ) ∧ ⇒ ∃ p ′′ ∈ Q : p ′′ ( w @ ) ∧ � V � w @ ( x , p ′′ ) = ∃ p ∈ Q : � V � w @ ( x , p )
Adopt Spector & Egré’s proposal that embedded interrogatives denote possible complete answers (exhaustified Hamblin Qs) Some alternative explanation of Q-agnostic predicates that are neither P-veridical nor Q-veridical—e.g. CoS predicates 19 Moving forward System Goal
Data and proposal
Change-of-state (CoS) licenses Q-agnosticism (14) a. b. Show that... 1. ...Spector & Egré’s proposal makes no wrong predictions 2. ...to strengthen their predictions without overgenerating, 21 Our proposal Claim Jo hasn’t decided (whether) to go out. Jo didn’t intend (*whether) to go out. Plan about CoS verbs, but it undergenerates entailments we have to make reference to CoS
decide to decide whether to # 22 Two contexts Selecting Alternating
decide to decide whether to # 22 Two contexts Selecting Alternating
decide to decide whether to # 22 Two contexts Selecting Alternating
intend p 23 (16) p intend intend p decision 1 At 3pm, Jo decided to leave at 5pm. It’s false that Jo intended not to leave before. c. It’s false that Jo intended to leave before 3pm. b. Before 3pm, Jo was considering whether to leave. a. (15) decider selects an intention from set of possible intentions Context 1: selecting Selecting contexts
23 At 3pm, Jo decided to leave at 5pm. decider selects an intention from set of possible intentions (15) a. Before 3pm, Jo was considering whether to leave. b. intend p c. decision 1 (16) Context 1: selecting Selecting contexts → It’s false that Jo intended to leave before 3pm. → It’s false that Jo intended not to leave before. { } intend p intend ¬ p
decider changes intention from mutually exclusive intention (17) At 3pm, Jo decided to leave at 5pm. (18) At 4pm, Jo changed her mind and decided not to leave. decision 1 decision 2 intend p intend p 24 Context 2: alternating Alternating contexts { } intend ¬ p intend ¬ p
decide to decide whether to # 25 Two contexts Selecting Alternating
26 b. intend p intend p decision 1 c. a. At 3pm, Jo decided to leave at 5pm. (19) Given only the (prototypical) selecting contexts... Selecting v. switching contexts Possibility → Jo intended to leave after 3pm. ? − → It’s F that Jo intended to leave before 4pm ? − → It’s F that Jo intended not to leave before 4pm { } intend ¬ p
27 decision 1 The availability of alternating contexts suggests... (20) At 4pm, Jo decided not to leave at 5pm. a. intend p b. intend p c. decision 2 Selecting v. switching contexts Conclusion → Jo intended not to leave after 4pm. → It’s F that Jo intended to leave before 4pm ̸→ It’s F that Jo intended not to leave before 4pm { } intend ¬ p intend ¬ p
(simplified to capture just entailments of interest) (21) 28 An initial try A CoS denotation Suggests a very straightforward CoS denotation for decide to � decide S � t = λ x . ¬ intend ( x , � S � , < t ) ∧ intend ( x , � S � , ≥ t )
What predictions does Spector & Egré’s (2015) proposal make? (22) Predicts everything correctly for post-states (23) Either Jo intended to leave or she intended not to leave. 29 Question embedding and CoS Question Jo decided whether to leave. Answer 1
30 (26) But this prediction is too weak t intend x p t intend x p Q p 5pm or it’s false that she decided not to leave at 5pm. Before 4pm, either it’s false that Jo decided to leave at (25) For pre-states, where it makes predictions, they are correct (24) What predictions does Spector & Egré’s (2015) proposal make? Question embedding and CoS Question At 4pm, Jo decided whether to leave at 5pm. Answer 2
30 (26) But this prediction is too weak t intend x p t intend x p Q p 5pm or it’s false that she decided not to leave at 5pm. Before 4pm, either it’s false that Jo decided to leave at (25) For pre-states, where it makes predictions, they are correct (24) What predictions does Spector & Egré’s (2015) proposal make? Question embedding and CoS Question At 4pm, Jo decided whether to leave at 5pm. Answer 2
What predictions does Spector & Egré’s (2015) proposal make? (24) For pre-states, where it makes predictions, they are correct (25) Before 4pm, either it’s false that Jo decided to leave at 5pm or it’s false that she decided not to leave at 5pm. (26) But this prediction is too weak 30 Question embedding and CoS Question At 4pm, Jo decided whether to leave at 5pm. Answer 2 ∃ p ∈ Q : ¬ intend ( x , p , < t ) ∧ intend ( x , p , ≥ t )
What predictions does Spector & Egré’s (2015) proposal make? (24) For pre-states, where it makes predictions, they are correct (25) Before 4pm, either it’s false that Jo decided to leave at 5pm or it’s false that she decided not to leave at 5pm. (26) But this prediction is too weak 30 Question embedding and CoS Question At 4pm, Jo decided whether to leave at 5pm. Answer 2 ∃ p ∈ Q : ¬ intend ( x , p , < t ) ∧ intend ( x , p , ≥ t )
(27) a. Before 3, Jo intended neither to leave nor not to. b. At 3, Jo decided whether to leave. (28) a. Before 4, Jo intended either to leave or not to. b. #At 4pm, Jo decided whether to leave at 5pm 31 Question embedding and CoS Observation While decide to is licensed in selecting and alternating contexts, decide whether to is only licensed in selective contexts Intuition (28b) → Jo have no intention with respect to leaving before 4pm
decide to decide whether to # 32 Two contexts Selecting Alternating
decide to decide whether to # 32 Two contexts Selecting Alternating
We need (30), rather than (29) for CoS embedded questions. (29) (30) The pre-state conjunct is equivalent to the negation of the post- state conjunct ( modulo tense) (31) 33 Question embedding and CoS Consequence ∃ p ∈ Q : ¬ intend ( x , p , < t ) ∧ intend ( x , p , ≥ t ) ∀ p ∈ Q : ¬ intend ( x , p , < t ) ∧ ∃ p ∈ Q : intend ( x , p , ≥ t ) Observation ∀ p ∈ Q : ¬ intend ( x , p ) ↔ ¬∃ p ∈ Q : intend ( x , p )
Apply Spector & Egré’s (2015) proposal to each conjunct (32) (33) (34) 34 Question embedding and CoS Idea Q = � whether S � = { � S � , ¬ � S � } = { p , ¬ p } � decide whether S � t = λ x . ¬ intend ( x , Q , < t ) ∧ intend ( x , Q , ≥ t ) � decide whether S � t = λ x . ¬∃ p ∈ Q : intend ( x , p , < t ) ∧ ∃ p ∈ Q : intend ( x , p , ≥ t )
(35) a. 35 Question embedding and CoS Problem Mysterious why we shouldn’t be able to do this for intend Jo hasn’t decided whether to go out. b. *Jo didn’t intend whether to go out. � intend whether S � = λ x . intend ( x , � whether S � ) = λ x . ∃ p ∈ � whether S � : intend ( x , p )
Problem doesn’t arise for CoS veridicals (36) a. b. 36 Question embedding and CoS Observation Jo doesn’t figure out (whether) Bo left. Jo doesn’t know (whether) Bo left. � know whether S � = λ x . know ( x , � whether S � ) = λ x . ∃ p ∈ � whether S � : know ( x , p )
Only target certain event types (e.g. intentions) in CoS structure Make interrogative-taking dependent on CoS 37 Question embedding and CoS Upshot Proposal
Implementation
(38) (37) 39 Our implementation Minimal requirements For decide to , something of the form in (37) . . . ¬ intend ( x , � S � , < t ) ∧ intend ( x , � S � , ≥ t ) For decide whether to , something of the form in (38) . . . ∀ p ∈ Q : ¬ intend ( x , p , < t ) ∧ ∃ p ∈ Q : intend ( x , p , ≥ t )
decide Q-agnostic predicates undergo a regular polysemy decide Q decide p 40 Our implementation Core idea Lexical abstraction Polysemy rules Lexicon
decide Q-agnostic predicates undergo a regular polysemy decide Q decide p 40 Our implementation Core idea Lexical abstraction Polysemy rules Lexicon
R ques A polysemy approach for Q-agnostics R prop 41 George’s (2011) Twin Relations Theory Goal Elementary relations R ∀ R ∃ Lexical templating Lexicon
Proposition-taking variant passes p to elementary relations 42 Lexical templates R prop ≡ λ w .λ x .λ p . R ∀ ( x , p , w ) ∧ R ∃ ( x , p , w ) Question-taking variant passes p ∈ Q to elementary relations R ques ≡ λ w .λ x .λ Q . ∀ p ∈ Q : R ∀ ( x , p , w ) ∧ ∃ p ∈ Q : R ∃ ( x , p , w ) Veridicality arises from R ∀ know ∀ ( x , p , w ) ≡ believe ( x , p , w ) → p ( w )
(39) (40) 43 R prop corresponds to the form we need for decide to , and R ques corresponds to the form we need for decide whether to decide ∀ = ¬ intend decide ∃ = intend R ∀ = R pre characterizes pre-states R ∃ = R post charatcerizes post-states
e P V e P V e 44 f S w con e w f e e f [V S] VP (44) Our attitude denotations f e e VP Hacquard’s (2010) neo-Davidsonian event content approach (43) Champollion’s (2015) verb-as-event-quantifier approach S w con e w [V S] VP (42) w is compatible with the contents of e w con e (41) (cf. Kratzer 2006, Moulton 2009, Bogal-Allbritten 2016) Basic approach
P V e 44 Our attitude denotations S w con e w f e e f [V S] VP (44) f e Hacquard’s (2010) neo-Davidsonian event content approach e f VP (43) Champollion’s (2015) verb-as-event-quantifier approach (42) (41) (cf. Kratzer 2006, Moulton 2009, Bogal-Allbritten 2016) Basic approach con ( e ) = { w : w is compatible with the contents of e } � [V S] VP � = λ e . P V ( e ) ∧ ∀ w ∈ con ( e ) : � S � ( w )
P V e 44 (44) S w con e w f e e f [V S] VP Our attitude denotations Hacquard’s (2010) neo-Davidsonian event content approach (43) Champollion’s (2015) verb-as-event-quantifier approach (42) (41) (cf. Kratzer 2006, Moulton 2009, Bogal-Allbritten 2016) Basic approach con ( e ) = { w : w is compatible with the contents of e } � [V S] VP � = λ e . P V ( e ) ∧ ∀ w ∈ con ( e ) : � S � ( w ) � VP � = λ f . ∃ e : f ( e ) ∧ . . .
Hacquard’s (2010) neo-Davidsonian event content approach (cf. Kratzer 2006, Moulton 2009, Bogal-Allbritten 2016) (41) (42) Champollion’s (2015) verb-as-event-quantifier approach (43) Our attitude denotations (44) 44 Basic approach con ( e ) = { w : w is compatible with the contents of e } � [V S] VP � = λ e . P V ( e ) ∧ ∀ w ∈ con ( e ) : � S � ( w ) � VP � = λ f . ∃ e : f ( e ) ∧ . . . � [V S] VP � = λ f . ∃ e : P V ( e ) ∧ f ( e ) ∧ ∀ w ∈ con ( e ) : � S � ( w )
e pre e post {intend p 1 , intend p 2 , ...} intend p i inquisitive informative decide content content 45 Our implementation
e pre e post {intend p 1 , intend p 2 , ...} intend p i inquisitive informative decide content content 45 Our implementation
e pre e post {intend p 1 , intend p 2 , ...} intend p i inquisitive informative decide content content 45 Our implementation
Define decision to relate a pre-state and a post-state (45) Define constraint on inquisitive pre-state (46) (47) 46 Defining decision decision ( e , e pre , e post ) ≡ e is a decision with pre-state e pre and post-state e post R pre ( e , p ) = ¬∀ w ∈ con ( e ) : p ( w ) Define constraint on informative post-state R post ( e , p ) = ∀ w ∈ con ( e ) : p ( w )
R prop decision R ques decision e e pre e post decision e e pre e post R pre p e pre R post p e post e e pre e post decision e e pre e post R pre p e pre R post p e post f e p Q f p Q b. Q f e 47 f As expected for a change-of-state verb p a. (50) (50b) decide ques b. (50a) decide prop a. (49) Extend George’s lexical templates to events (48) Defining lexical templates ∀ e , p : R pre ( e , p ) ← → ¬ R post ( e , p )
e e pre e post decision e e pre e post R pre p e pre R post p e post e e pre e post decision e e pre e post R pre p e pre R post p e post Q p Q p f e f Q b. 47 f e As expected for a change-of-state verb f p a. (50) b. a. (49) Extend George’s lexical templates to events (48) Defining lexical templates ∀ e , p : R pre ( e , p ) ← → ¬ R post ( e , p ) � decide prop � = R prop ( decision ) = (50a) � decide ques � = R ques ( decision ) = (50b)
R pre p e pre R post p e post e e pre e post decision e e pre e post R pre p e pre R post p e post Q p Q p f e f Q b. 47 As expected for a change-of-state verb a. (50) b. a. (49) Extend George’s lexical templates to events (48) Defining lexical templates ∀ e , p : R pre ( e , p ) ← → ¬ R post ( e , p ) � decide prop � = R prop ( decision ) = (50a) � decide ques � = R ques ( decision ) = (50b) λ p .λ f . ∃ e , e pre , e post : decision ( e , e pre , e post ) ∧ f ( e )
e e pre e post decision e e pre e post R pre p e pre R post p e post a. f Q b. As expected for a change-of-state verb Q 47 (50) p b. p a. (49) Extend George’s lexical templates to events Q (48) f e Defining lexical templates ∀ e , p : R pre ( e , p ) ← → ¬ R post ( e , p ) � decide prop � = R prop ( decision ) = (50a) � decide ques � = R ques ( decision ) = (50b) λ p .λ f . ∃ e , e pre , e post : decision ( e , e pre , e post ) ∧ f ( e ) ∧ R pre ( p )( e pre ) ∧ R post ( p )( e post )
R pre p e pre R post p e post 47 (50) Q p Q p b. As expected for a change-of-state verb a. a. b. (49) Extend George’s lexical templates to events (48) Defining lexical templates ∀ e , p : R pre ( e , p ) ← → ¬ R post ( e , p ) � decide prop � = R prop ( decision ) = (50a) � decide ques � = R ques ( decision ) = (50b) λ p .λ f . ∃ e , e pre , e post : decision ( e , e pre , e post ) ∧ f ( e ) ∧ R pre ( p )( e pre ) ∧ R post ( p )( e post ) λ Q .λ f . ∃ e , e pre , e post : decision ( e , e pre , e post ) ∧ f ( e )
47 As expected for a change-of-state verb (48) b. a. Extend George’s lexical templates to events (49) a. (50) b. Defining lexical templates ∀ e , p : R pre ( e , p ) ← → ¬ R post ( e , p ) � decide prop � = R prop ( decision ) = (50a) � decide ques � = R ques ( decision ) = (50b) λ p .λ f . ∃ e , e pre , e post : decision ( e , e pre , e post ) ∧ f ( e ) ∧ R pre ( p )( e pre ) ∧ R post ( p )( e post ) λ Q .λ f . ∃ e , e pre , e post : decision ( e , e pre , e post ) ∧ f ( e ) ∧∀ p ∈ Q : R pre ( p )( e pre ) ∧∃ p ∈ Q : R post ( p )( e post )
When decide takes an interrogative... Jo decide ques ?S e e pre e post decision e e pre e post ?S p w con e post w ?S p p w con e pre w 48 p agent j e S w con e post w S w con e pre w Full denotations When decide takes a declarative... � Jo decide prop S � = ∃ e , e pre , e post : decision ( e , e pre , e post ) ∧ agent ( j , e )
When decide takes an interrogative... Jo decide ques ?S e e pre e post decision e e pre e post 48 w p w con e post w ?S p p w con e pre agent j e ?S p S w con e post w Full denotations When decide takes a declarative... � Jo decide prop S � = ∃ e , e pre , e post : decision ( e , e pre , e post ) ∧ agent ( j , e ) ∧¬∀ w ∈ con ( e pre ) : � S � ( w )
When decide takes an interrogative... Jo decide ques ?S e e pre e post decision e e pre e post 48 con e pre p w con e post w ?S p p w p w ?S agent j e Full denotations When decide takes a declarative... � Jo decide prop S � = ∃ e , e pre , e post : decision ( e , e pre , e post ) ∧ agent ( j , e ) ∧¬∀ w ∈ con ( e pre ) : � S � ( w ) ∧∀ w ∈ con ( e post ) : � S � ( w )
48 con e pre p w con e post w ?S p p w w ?S p Full denotations When decide takes a declarative... � Jo decide prop S � = ∃ e , e pre , e post : decision ( e , e pre , e post ) ∧ agent ( j , e ) ∧¬∀ w ∈ con ( e pre ) : � S � ( w ) ∧∀ w ∈ con ( e post ) : � S � ( w ) When decide takes an interrogative... � Jo decide ques ?S � = ∃ e , e pre , e post : decision ( e , e pre , e post ) ∧ agent ( j , e )
p ?S w con e post p w 48 Full denotations When decide takes a declarative... � Jo decide prop S � = ∃ e , e pre , e post : decision ( e , e pre , e post ) ∧ agent ( j , e ) ∧¬∀ w ∈ con ( e pre ) : � S � ( w ) ∧∀ w ∈ con ( e post ) : � S � ( w ) When decide takes an interrogative... � Jo decide ques ?S � = ∃ e , e pre , e post : decision ( e , e pre , e post ) ∧ agent ( j , e ) ∧∀ p ∈ � ?S � : ¬∀ w ∈ con ( e pre ) : p ( w )
48 Full denotations When decide takes a declarative... � Jo decide prop S � = ∃ e , e pre , e post : decision ( e , e pre , e post ) ∧ agent ( j , e ) ∧¬∀ w ∈ con ( e pre ) : � S � ( w ) ∧∀ w ∈ con ( e post ) : � S � ( w ) When decide takes an interrogative... � Jo decide ques ?S � = ∃ e , e pre , e post : decision ( e , e pre , e post ) ∧ agent ( j , e ) ∧∀ p ∈ � ?S � : ¬∀ w ∈ con ( e pre ) : p ( w ) ∧∃ p ∈ � ?S � : ∀ w ∈ con ( e post ) : p ( w )
Possible answer Decision pre-states just are intentional states Our answer Modality in the embedded clause (Bhatt 1999, Grano 2012, Wurmbrand 2014, White 2014) 49 Embedded modality Remaining question Where does the intention entailment come from?
Our answer Modality in the embedded clause (Bhatt 1999, Grano 2012, Wurmbrand 2014, White 2014) 49 Embedded modality Remaining question Where does the intention entailment come from? Possible answer Decision pre-states just are intentional states
Always(?) intention for infinitivals (51) Jo {determined, decided, chose} whether to leave. Otherwise dependent on content of finite complement (52) a. Jo decided whether she would leave. b. Jo decided whether Bo could leave. 50 Embedded modality Evidence
Always(?) intention for infinitivals (51) Jo {determined, decided, chose} whether to leave. Otherwise dependent on content of finite complement (52) a. Jo decided whether she would leave. b. Jo decided whether Bo could leave. 50 Embedded modality Evidence
Modality in the embedded clause (Bhatt 1999, Grano 2012, Wurmbrand 2014, White 2014) 51 Embedded modality Remaining question Where does the intention entailment come from? Possible answer Decision pre-states just are intentional states Our answer
Conclusion
Veridicality predicts Q-agnosticism Change-of-State (CoS) also predicts Q-agnosticism Assimilates CoS pre-state entailments to veridicality entailments 53 Wrapping up Working assumption Proposal Implementation
Why would pre-state entailments be like veridicality entailments? Pre-state entailments are generally backgrounded (cf. Anand & Hacquard 2014) 54 Wrapping up Question Relevant observation start , stop ) (Roberts 1996, Simons 2001, Abusch 2002, Simons et al. 2010, Abusch 2010, Abrusán 2011, Romoli 2011,
Possible exception: forget Relevance Suggestion No monomorphemic verb characterizes a relation between an Suggests an asymmetry between pre-states and post-states that we don’t currently encode Whatever gives rise to pre-state backgrounding for other CoS predicates also gives rise to this asymmetry 55 A generalization Tentative generalization informative pre-state and an inquisitive post-state (* undecide )
Recommend
More recommend
