Which QuD? Matthew Barros Hadas Kotek matthew.barros@yale.edu - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Which QuD? Matthew Barros Hadas Kotek matthew.barros@yale.edu hadas.kotek@nyu.edu GLOW 41 in Budapest April 2018

Introduction Sluicing : clausal ellipsis in a wh -question, leaving the wh -phrase overt (e.g.Ross 1969; Chung et al. 1995; Merchant 2001) (1) Some terminology: 2/50 Mary called someone, but I don’t know who. [ CP A Mary called someone ] , BIDK [ CP E who [ TP Mary called t ] ] . • Remnant : any wh -phrase lefu overt in sluicing. • Correlate : an indefinite corresponding to the remnant. • Antecedent, sluice .

Introduction A central question: How is ellipsis licensed? A consensus: Ellipsis is licensed under identity with an antecedent. Q: How is identity computed? Semantic identity alongside some degree of syntactic identity (Chung 2006, 2013; AnderBois 2011; Weir 2014) Today We focus on the semantic component of the identity condition. 3/50 � Ellipsis represents a radical mismatch between PF and LF. • Syntactic identity • Semantic identity • Growing consensus: Hybrid accounts

Introduction Three kinds of semantic equivalence approaches: 1 Ordinary semantic content (Sag 1976; Williams 1977) 2 Focus-semantic content (Rooth 1992; Fox 2000; Romero 1998; Merchant 2001) 3 Q-equivalence (equivalence to a question raised by the antecedent ) (Ginzburg and Sag 2000; AnderBois 2011; Barros 2014; Weir 2014; Kotek and Barros to appear) We argue against Q-equivalence and for a return to focus-based approaches. 4/50

Roadmap §1 Background §2 Proposal: A focus-theoretic account §3 Against Q-equivalence §4 e-GIVENness reconsidered §5 Beyond sluicing §6 Conclusion 5/50

Roadmap §1 Background §2 Proposal: A focus-theoretic account §3 Against Q-equivalence §4 e-GIVENness reconsidered §5 Beyond sluicing §6 Conclusion 6/50 • Focus and alternatives • Modeling questions • Modeling propositions

Background position (Rooth, 1985, 1992, a.o.). (3’) On focus and alternatives (2’) These alternatives correspond to alternatives at the proposition level: 7/50 Consider two examples that difger only in the placement of focus : (2) (3) MARY ran. Mary RAN. Focus triggers the computation of alternatives which vary in the focused     λ w . Mary ran in w , λ w . Mary ran in w ,             λ w . Abby ran in w , λ w . Mary jumped in w ,     λ w . Betty ran in w , λ w . Mary walked in w ,             λ w . Cathy ran in w λ w . Mary swam in w    

Background proposition set of alt. propositions On focus and alternatives 8/50 (4) Each sentence will now have an ordinary value � · � o and a focus-semantic value � · � f (Rooth, 1985, a.o.) . For our simple example (2): a. � Mary F ran � o = λ w . Mary ran in w   λ w . Mary ran in w ,       λ w . Abby ran in w ,   b. � Mary F ran � f = λ w . Betty ran in w ,       λ w . Cathy ran in w  

Background a. Who did Mary call? 2006; Cable 2010; Kotek 2014). (e.g. Hamblin 1973; Ramchand 1997; Kratzer and Shimoyama 2002; Beck Mary called Abby, Mary called Betty, Mary called Cathy Modeling questions b. (5) possible answers to the question (Hamblin 1973; Karttunen 1977) : (1) Sluicing involves questions : 9/50 Mary called someone, but I don’t know who i Mary called t i . We adopt the view that questions denote sets of propositions that are { } c. λ p . ∃ x ( p = λ w . Mary called x in w ) � Here, the source of the alternatives is the wh -word

Background Modeling propositions Propositions are sets of worlds that satisfy certain truth conditions: (6) (7) Sue ran (or both). 10/50 � Mary ran � o = λ w . Mary ran in w � the collection of all of the worlds in which Mary ran. We can define a union operation over propositions: ∪ ∪ ∪ � Mary ran � o or � Sue ran � o = [ λ w . Mary ran in w ] ∪ [ λ w . Sue ran in w ] � the collection of all of the worlds in which either Mary ran or

11/50 Brief summary • Sentences have ordinary and focus semantic values . • A focus semantic value is a set of propositions . • A question also denotes a set of propositions . • A proposition is a set of worlds that satisfy certain truth-conditions. • We can define operations on these sets, such as ∪ .

Roadmap §1 Background §2 Proposal: A focus-theoretic account §3 Against Q-equivalence §4 e-GIVENness reconsidered §5 Beyond sluicing §6 Conclusion 12/50 • Simple cases • Sprouting

Proposal (8) Proposal: For our purposes today, amounts to the following: In other words, sluicing is possible provided the antecedent and sluice have the same focus-theoretic propositional content . 13/50 Sluicing may apply in CP E provided a. CP E has a salient antecedent, CP A , and b. the set of worlds used to construct the alternatives in � CP E � f ↔ the set of worlds used to construct the alternatives in � CP A � f . � ∪ � CP A � f ↔ ∪ � CP E � f

Proposal simple sluices Let’s begin by looking at a simple example with an indefinite correlate: (9) (= 1) 14/50 [ CP A Mary called someone ], BIDK [ CP E who Mary called ]. � Condition (a) of our proposal is met: CP E has a salient antecedent CP A . • Sluiced clause CP E : who i Mary called t i • Antecedent clause CP A : Mary called someone

Proposal simple sluices (9) 15/50 � Condition (b) of our proposal is also met: ∪ � CP A � f ↔ ∪ � CP E � f [ CP A Mary called someone ], BIDK [ CP E who Mary called ]. a. � [ CP E Who Mary called ] � f = λ p . ∃ x ( p = λ w . Mary called x in w ) b. ∪ � [ CP E Who Mary called ] � f = λ w . ∃ x ( Mary called x in w ) c. ∪ � [ CP A Mary called someone ] � f = λ w . ∃ x ( Mary called x in w ) d. (9b) ↔ (9c)

Proposal Sprouting . … where to how why in which car with whom when 16/50 Jack lefu, but I don’t know Sprouting : When the remnant lacks an explicit linguistic correlate (Chung et al. 1995, a.o.). (11) (10) Jack ate, but I don’t know what.                                              

Proposal Adjunct sprouting (12) The trick: If Jack lefu in w , then Jack lefu at a certain time t in w . 17/50 � Our proposal licenses adjunct sprouting: [ CP A Jack lefu ] , BIDK [ CP E when Jack lefu ]. a. � When Jack lefu � f = λ p . ∃ t ( p = λ w . Jack left at time t in w ) b. ∪ � When Jack lefu � f = λ w . ∃ t ( Jack left at time t in w ) c. ∪ � Jack lefu � f = λ w . Jack left in w d. (12b) ↔ (12c)

Proposal Argument sprouting (13) The trick: If Jack ate in w , then Jack ate a certain thing x in w . 18/50 � Our proposal also licenses argument sprouting: [ CP A Jack ate ] , BIDK [ CP E what Jack ate ]. a. � what Jack ate � f = λ p . ∃ x ( p = λ w . Jack ate x in w ) b. ∪ � what Jack ate � f = λ w . ∃ x ( Jack ate x in w ) c. ∪ � Jack ate � f = λ w . Jack ate in w d. (13b) ↔ (13c)

Proposal Summary Sluicing is possible provided the antecedent and sluice have the same focus-theoretic propositional content . 19/50 � A focus-based account

Roadmap §1 Background §2 Proposal: A focus-theoretic account §3 Against Q-equivalence §4 e-GIVENness reconsidered §5 Beyond sluicing §6 Conclusion 20/50 • Background: Q-equivalence approaches • Sprouting • Non-issue antecedents • The answer ban • Antecedent sharing

Against Q-equivalence Background: Q-equivalence approaches The intuition: antecedents with expressions like indefinites and disjunctions implicitly raise questions as to which alternative holds. (14) (15) Sluicing is possible when the sluice is equivalent to the question raised by the antecedent (Ginzburg and Sag 2000; AnderBois 2011; Barros 2014; Weir 2014; Kotek and Barros to appear). 21/50 Someone lefu � Who lefu? Abby or Betty lefu � Which one lefu?

Against Q-equivalence Background: Q-equivalence approaches Q: How do we determine precisely what question is raised? Inquisitive-Semantic inquisitive denotation (called an issue ) Discussion (QuD), in the sense of Roberts 1996/2012 (Büring 2003; Barros 2012, 2014) . (16) The algorithm in Barros 2014: a. Replace the indefinite/disjunction with the corresponding wh -phrase. b. Front the wh -phrase. c. The result is the QuD raised by the antecedent. 22/50 � AnderBois 2011: the question raised by the antecedent is its � Algorithmic approaches: heuristically arrive at a Question under

Against Q-equivalence Sprouting Sprouting is famously flexible. For Q-equivalence approaches, difgerent issues or QuDs must be available for the antecedent to license ellipsis in each case. (17) a. Jack met someone, BIDK { who/when }. b. Jack lefu, BIDK { when/how/in which car/why/where to, … } particular issue/QuD at all? Our answer: It is, in fact, the sluice that is responsible for determining the relevant issue. 23/50 � To what extent is the antecedent responsible for raising any