DTAL Tuesday Colloquium, 15 November 2011

(1)
(1a)
(2)
(2a)
(3)
(3a)
Some British people like cricket.
Some but not all British people like cricket.
Tom dropped a camera and it broke.
Tom dropped a camera and as a result it broke.
Everybody read Frege.
Every member of the research group read Frege.
 2

(4) Child to mother: Everybody has a bike.
(4a) All of the child’s friends have bikes.
(4b) Many/most of the child’s classmates have bikes.
(4c) The mother should consider buying her son a bike.
(4d) Cycling is a popular form of exercise among children.
 3

(4) Child to mother: Everybody has a bike.
(4a) All of the child’s friends have bikes.
(4b) Many/most of the child’s classmates have bikes.
(4c) The mother should consider buying her son a bike.
(4d) Cycling is a popular form of exercise among children.
 4

Contextualism, standard view:
The logical form becomes enriched/modulated as a result of pragmatic inference and the entire semantic/pragmatic product becomes subjected to the truth-conditional analysis.
 5

The logical form becomes
?
enriched/modulated as a result of pragmatic inference and the entire semantic/pragmatic product becomes subjected to the truth-conditional analysis.
 6

?
How far can the logical form be extended? ‘How much pragmatics’ is allowed in the semantic representation?
 7

 8

 The logical form of the sentence can not only be extended but also replaced by a new semantic representation when the primary, intended meaning demands it. Such extensions or substitutions are primary meanings and their representations are merger representations in Default Semantics . There is no
syntactic constraint on merger representations.
 9

• Default Semantics
 unit of analysis
 sources of information contributing to the unit
 pragmatic compositionality
 merger representations: towards a formalization
 10

• Default Semantics
 unit of analysis
 sources of information contributing to the unit
 pragmatic compositionality
 merger representations: towards a formalization
• Selected applications:
 temporal reference
 reports on epistemic attitudes (‘A believes that B
 s’)
 beliefs de se: 1 st person reference and ‘cognitive access to oneself’
 11

• The output of syntactic processing often leaves the meaning underdetermined.
 12

• The output of syntactic processing often leaves the meaning underdetermined.
• The object of study of a theory of meaning is a pragmatically modified representation. (Default Semantics is a radical contextualist theory.)
 13

• The output of syntactic processing often leaves the meaning underdetermined.
• This pragmatically modified representation is an object of study of a theory of meaning (Default Semantics is a radical contextualist theory).
• There is no syntactic constraint on the object of study.
 14

• The output of syntactic processing often leaves the meaning underdetermined.
• This pragmatically modified representation is an object of study of a theory of meaning (Default Semantics is a radical contextualist theory).
• There is no syntactic constraint on the object of study.
• Discourse meaning is construed as meaning intended by the
Model Speaker and recovered by Model Addressee.
 15

(5) Child: Can I go to see Contagion?
Mother: You are too small.
(5a) The child is too small to see the film Contagion in the cinema.
(5b) The child can’t go to see the film.
 16

(5) Child: Can I go to see Contagion?
Mother: You are too small.
(5a) The child is too small to see the film Contagion in the cinema.
(5b) The child can’t go to see the film.
 17

• Interlocutors frequently communicate their main intended content through a proposition which is not syntactically restricted.
Experimental evidence:
Nicolle and Clark 1999
Pitts 2005
Sysoeva and Jaszczolt 2007
 18


• Primary meanings are modelled as the so-called merger
representations.
 19


• Primary meanings are modelled as the so-called merger
representations.
• The outputs of sources of information about meaning merge and all the outputs are treated on an equal footing.
 20


• Primary meanings are modelled as the so-called merger
representations.
• The outputs of sources of information about meaning merge and all the outputs are treated on an equal footing. The syntactic constraint is abandoned.
• Merger representations have the status of mental representations.
 21


• Primary meanings are modelled as the so-called
merger representations.
• The outputs of sources of information about meaning merge and all the outputs are treated on an equal footing. The syntactic constraint is abandoned.
• Merger representations have the status of mental representations.
• They have a compositional structure.
 22


(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v) world knowledge (WK) word meaning and sentence structure (WS) situation of discourse (SD) properties of the human inferential system (IS) stereotypes and presumptions about society and culture (SC)
 23

(6) The winner of the 2011 Man Booker Prize wrote The
Sense of an Ending.
(6a) Julian Barnes wrote The Sense of an Ending. psychologism
 24

world knowledge (WK) merger representation Σ word meaning and sentence structure (WS) stereotypes and presumptions about society and culture (SC) situation of discourse (SD) properties of human inferential system (IS)
Fig. 1: Sources of information contributing to a merger representation Σ

The model of sources of information can be mapped onto
types of processes that produce the merger representation
 of the primary meaning and the additional (secondary) meanings.
 26

Primary meaning: merger representation Σ combination of word meaning and sentence structure (WS) conscious pragmatic inference pm
(from situation of discourse, social and social, cultural and cognitive defaults (CD) cultural assumptions, and world world-knowledge defaults pm
(SCWD pm
) knowledge) (CPI pm
)
Secondary meanings:

Social, cultural and world-knowledge defaults sm
( SCWD
 conscious pragmatic inference sm
( CPI sm
) sm
)
Fig. 2: Utterance interpretation according to the processing model of the revised version of Default Semantics

WK
SC
WS
SD
IS
 SCWD or CPI
 SCWD or CPI
 WS (logical form)
 CPI
 CD
In building merger representations DS makes use of the processing model and it indexes the components of
 with a subscript standing for the type of processing.
 28

definite descriptions proper names belief reports (de re/de dicto, de se) negation and other sentential connectives presupposition number terms temporal reference and modality
 29

Languages:
English, Korean, Thai, Persian, Russian, Polish, French,
German, Italian
 30

 31

 32

 Is the human concept of time a universal concept?
 Is it primitive or composed of simpler concepts?
 How do linguistic expressions of time reflect it?
 33

 Is the human concept of time a universal concept?
Probably yes
 Is it primitive or composed of simpler concepts?
Supervenient on properties of modality
 How do linguistic expressions of time reflect it?
Representations in Default Semantics
 34

What is expressed in the lexicon in one language may be expressed by grammar in another.
What is expressed overtly in one language may be left to pragmatic inference or default interpretation in another.
 35

ka
(7) a. …wa-Ingereza wa-li-wa-chukua
3Pl-British 3Pl-Past-3Pl-take
‘…then the British took the corpses, wa-le
3Pl-Dem maiti, corpses b. wa -kawa-tia katika bao
3Pl-Cons-3Pl-put.on
on board put them on a flat board, moja, one c. wa -kaya-telemesha maji-ni
3Pl-Cons-3Pl-lower water-Loc kwa with and lowered them steadily into the water…’ utaratibu w-ote… order 3Pl-all adapted from Givón (2005: 154)
 36

(8) Lidia played a sonata.
e
1

The audience applauded.
e
2
 37

St’àt’imcets [stɬɛtɬemxəʧ] (Lillooet Salish), British Columbia only future (kelh) – non-future distinction
 38

Future can be realis or irrealis
 39

(9) m
3 ae:r
3 i: I
Mary kh
2 ian write n
3 iy
3 ai: novel
 40

supervenience of the concept of time on the concept of
epistemic detachment (temporal properties on modal properties in semantics)
 41

(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(10)
(11)
Lidia went to a concert yesterday.
(regular past)
This is what happened yesterday. Lidia goes to a concert, meets her school friend and tells her…
(past of narration)
Lidia would have gone to a concert (then).
(epistemic necessity past)
Lidia must have gone to a concert (yesterday).
(epistemic necessity past)
Lidia may have gone to a concert (yesterday).
(epistemic possibility past)
Lidia might have gone to a concert (yesterday).
(epistemic possibility past)
 42


 43

Fig. 3: Degree of epistemic commitment for selected expressions with pasttime reference rp, pn enp epp
1 0

ACC
Δ
├ Σ
‘it is acceptable to the degree Δ that Σ is true’
 45

(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
Lidia is at a concert now.
(regular present)
Lidia will be at a concert now.
(epistemic necessity present)
Lidia must be at a concert now.
(epistemic necessity present)
Lidia may be at a concert now.
(epistemic possibility present)
Lidia might be at a concert now.
(epistemic possibility present)
 46

Fig. 4: Degree of epistemic commitment for expressions with present-time reference rn enn epn
1 0

Fig. 5: Σ for example (17) ‘Lidia will be at a concert now’
(epistemic necessity present)
Σ x t Σ'
[Lidia]
CD
(x) now (t)
[ACC  enn will
├ Σ']
WS, CPIpm
Σ' [x be at a concert]
WS

(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
Lidia goes to a concert tomorrow evening.
(‘tenseless’ future)
Lidia is going to a concert tomorrow evening.
(futurate progressive)
Lidia is going to go to a concert tomorrow evening.
(periphrastic future)
Lidia will go to a concert tomorrow evening.
(regular future)
Lidia must be going to a concert tomorrow evening.
(epistemic necessity future)
Lidia may go to a concert tomorrow evening.
(epistemic possibility future)
Lidia might go to a concert tomorrow evening.
(epistemic possibility future)
 49

Fig. 6: Degree of modal detachment for selected expressions with future-time reference epf enf rf pf fp tf
1 0

(9) m
3 ae:r
3 i: I
Mary kh
2 ian write n
3 iy
3 ai: novel
 51


Fig. 7:
 for example (3) ‘Mary wrote a novel’ (regular past) x y

'
[m
3 ae:r
3 i:
I
]
CD
(x)
[n
3 iy
3 ai:]
CD
(y)

' [x kh
2 ian y]
WS
[ACC
 rp
├

']
WS, CPIpm

Realis/irrealis future (Central Pomo):
Consecutive tense (Swahili):
ACC
Δ
├ Σ
WS + CPI pm
 53

 54

A believes that B φs
B=C
A believes that C φs
Substitution of coreferential terms in intensional contexts salva veritate
 55

(28) Tom believes that the author of Wolf Hall is coming to
Cambridge this spring.
[Hilary Mantel]
CD
(x) default de re
[Michael Morpurgo]
CPI1
(x) de dicto with a referential mistake
[the author of Wolf Hall]
CPI1
(x) de dicto proper
 56

‘x believes that

’. ’ Bel (x,

’)
The individual that corresponds to x on a certain interpretation has the cognitive state that corresponds to

’ on that interpretation.
 57

 x y
 ’
[Tom]
CD
(x)
[Hilary Mantel]
CD
(y)
[[x]
CD
[believes]
CD
 ’ ]
WS
 ’ : [[y]
CD
is coming to Cambridge this spring]
WS
Fig. 8: Partial

of the default de re reading of (28)
 58

 x y
 ’
[Tom]
CD
(x)
[Michael Morpurgo]
CPIpm
(y)
[[x]
CD
[believes]
CD
 ’ ]
WS
 ’ : [[y]
CPIpm is coming to Cambridge this spring]
WS
Fig. 9: Partial

of the reading de dicto with a referential mistake of (28)
 59

 x y
 ’
[Tom]
CD
(x)
[the author of Wolf Hall ]
CPIpm
(y)
[[x]
CD
[believes]
CPIpm
 ’ ]
 ’ : [[y]
WS
CPI 1 is coming to Cambridge this spring]
WS
Fig. 10:

of the reading de dicto proper of (28)
 60

The scenario:
(29) The person who agreed to organise the drinks is to blame.
(30) I am to blame. I completely forgot I was put in charge.
 61

 Grammar/pragmatics interface in conveying the intended de
se meaning
 Representing de se reports in Default Semantics
 62

referential semantics conflates (1) with (2):
(29) The person who agreed to organise the drinks is to blame.
(30) I am to blame. I completely forgot I was put in charge.
 x [to-blame(x)] (kasia jaszczolt)
 63

? Grammar produces the self-referring function
Chierchia (1989: 28): The cognitive access to oneself is
‘ systematically excluded from the interpretation of (nonpronominal) referential expressions. It is systematically present in the interpretation of overt pronouns. It is systematically and unambiguously associated with the interpretation of PRO the null subject of infinitives and gerunds. It is associated with the interpretation of longdistance reflexives (at least in some languages)’.
 64

The cognitive access to oneself is
?
‘systematically excluded from the interpretation of (nonx pronominal) referential expressions’;
?
‘systematically present in the interpretation of overt pronouns’;
‘systematically and unambiguously associated with the interpretation of PRO the null subject of infinitives and gerunds’;

‘associated with the interpretation of long-distance reflexives
(at least in some languages)’.
 65


 66

 67

Fig. 11: the non-default reading of (31), ‘de re about oneself’

[Kasia Jaszczolt]
CD
(x)
[Kasia Jaszczolt]
CPIpm
(y)
[y=x]
WS
[[x]
CD
[believes]
CPIpm
 ’ ]
WS
 ’ : [[y]
CPI
is to blame]
WS x y
 ’
 68

 Forthcoming. ‘Contextualism and minimalism on de se belief ascription’. In: N. Feit
& A. Capone (eds). Attitudes De Se: Linguistics, Epistemology, Metaphysics.
Stanford: CSLI Publications.
 In preparation. ‘First-person reference and cognitive access to oneself’.
Intercultural Pragmatics, special issue ‘Focus on the Speaker’.
 69