Knowledge Representation & Reasoning seminar:
Decomposing the DisjunctionBased Free Choice Items in Korean
Dept. of Computer Science, TTU
Min-Joo Kim
(in collaboration with Stefan Kaufmann
at Northwestern University)
November 4, 2005
1
What is Free Choice (FC)?
•
In English, sentences containing any
instantiate FC; that is, the truth of the sentence
is guaranteed regardless of the choice of an
individual at issue (Vendler 1967).
(1) Anybody can do it (no matter who he/she is.)
(2) Pick any apple (no matter which apple it is).
(3) If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to ask (no matter what kind of
questions they are).
2
•
In the sentences (1-3), the FC effect comes
about because of the interaction of two things:
(i) the presence of the expressions that contain
any, i.e., anybody, any apple, any questions.
(ii) the presence of a modal operator (e.g., can,
may), which has to do with possibility, and the
if-conditional.
3
Restriction on the distribution of any phrases
• Any expressions cannot occur in extensional
contexts, i.e., those that do not contain a modal
operator or a conditional. (Below ‘*’ means
ungrammatical):
(1’) *Anybody did it.
(2’) *I picked any apple.
(3’) *I asked any questions.
4
Any isn’t every or some.
•
Noun Phrases (NPs) that contain any cannot
be replaced by more ordinary quantificational
expressions such as every NP or some NP.
(4)a. Anybody can do it
b. Everybody can do it.
•
(4a) implicates that even a very incapable
person can do it; (4b) doesn’t carry such an
implicature.
5
Any =/= every
(5)a. Pick any apple.
b. Pick every apple.
• (5a) implicates that you can pick one apple
regardless of the property of the apple
(e.g., color, kind, size).
• But (5b) says that you can take all the
apples in the quantification domain.
6
Any =/= every continued
(6) a. If you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to ask.
??b. If you have every question, please
do not hesitate to ask.
(6b) is even ungrammatical!
7
Any =/= some
(7) a. Pick any apple.
b. Pick some apple.
• Unlike (7a), (7b) means that there is some
particular apple that the hearer can pick.
• Hence, the sentence doesn’t implicate that
the speaker is indifferent to which apple
the hearer picks.
8
Lessons so far
• NPs that contain any are “felt” to have
some sort of quantificational force, but
they cannot be equated with NPs that
contain every or some.
• Any NPs seem to implicate someone’s,
e.g., the speaker’s or the subject’s,
indifference as to the choice of an
individual at issue.
9
What are the quantificational forces
of any NPs?
•
“Universal” quantificational force (QF) (Dayal
1998):
(1) Anybody can do it  Everybody can do it (+
indifference implicature).
•
“Existential QF (Giannakidou 2001):
(2) Pick any apple  You’re allowed to pick an
apple (+ indifference implicature).
10
What about any NPs that occur in
negative sentences?
•
Any NPs can also occur in negative contexts,
as shown in (8-10):
(8) It cannot be done by anyone.
(9) Please don’t take any apple.
(10) I doubt that you have any questions.
•
The NPs that occur in negative contexts are
called Negative Polarity Items (NPIs).
11
Quantificational forces of NPIs
• Sentences (8-10) seem to involve either universal or existential
quantification, as the following paraphrases show:
(8) It cannot be done by anyone
 No one can do this. (For all x, x cannot do it.)
(9) Please don’t take any apple.
 Please take no apple. (For all x such that x is an apple, you are
not allowed to take x.)
(10) I doubt that you have any questions.
 I believe that you have no questions. (I believe that there is no x
such that x is a question and you have x.)
12
Do FC any expressions and NP any
expressions mean the same?
• Any NPs that behave like NPIs mean something
slightly different from those that behave like FC
items.
FC any:
(1) Anybody can do it  Even the most incapable
person can do it.
NP any:
(8) It cannot be done by anyone  Even the most
capable person cannot do it.
13
FC any:
(2) Pick any apple.
 You can take even the best apple, e.g., the
largest, and most scrumptious-looking one.
NP any:
(9) Please don’t take any apple.
 You can take no apple even the worst one,
e.g., a partly rotten apple.
14
FC any:
(3) If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to ask.
 You can ask a question even if it’s a stupid
one.
NP any:
(10) I doubt that you have any questions.
 I believe that you have no questions.
 Almost no implicature that has to do with the
“quality” of the question.
15
Lessons from comparing FC any and
NPI any expressions
• FC any expressions always carry “I don’t
care” or “regardless of X” implicatures; NP
any expressions do not necessarily carry
such implicatures.
• The semantics of FC any expressions
seem to point to the lowest guy on the
scale; NP any expressions seem to point
to the highest guy on the scale.
16
Road map for the remainder of the talk
• To focus on the ‘any’ expressions that
bring about FC effects.
• To examine how the FC phenomenon is
manifested in Korean, which is a very
different language than English.
• To explore a compositional way of deriving
the FC effects of Korean ‘any’ expressions.
17
Why Korean?
• We shall see that Korean provides a nice
window into FC, because things are more
“transparent” there.
 Any in English is spelled out into two things
(at least).
 So we can have a clearer idea as to how to
derive the FC effects in a compositional way by
putting the semantics of each element together.
18
What we’re going to propose:
• The meaning of FC items in Korean is
concerned with quantifying over ways of
choosing an individual from a contextually
salient set.
• That is, the quantification is not over
individuals but over choice functions in the
sense of Kratzer (1998).
19
Some background on Korean
• English has Subject Verb Object word
order; Korean has SOV word order.
• Korean is an aggultanative language: most
word stems are bound morphemes, so
they cannot stand alone. Plus, words that
have purely grammatical functions are
also bound morphemes as well.
20
Protocols for data presentation
in linguistics
(11) Transcription:
John-un Mary-lul
Word by word gloss: J.-Top M.-Acc
Translation:
‘John loves Mary.’
salangha-n-ta.
love-non.pst-decl
Some abbreviations:
Top  Topic
Nom  Nominative (Subject) case marker
Acc  Accusative (Objective) case marker
Non.pst  Non-past tense
Pst  Past
Decl  Declarative sentence.
Impr  Imperative sentence
Q  Question particle
21
FC in Korean
•
In Korean, FC expressions are realized as NPs that
consist of some pronoun nwukwu or amwu and an
apparent disjunction marker –na.
(12) nwukwu-na
ku
il-ul
hal-swuiss-ta.
nwukwu-NA that work-acc
do-can-decl.
‘Anybody can do it (no matter who he/she is.)’
(13) Amwu-na
tyeley o-la.
amwu-NA
bring come-impr.
‘Bring anybody (no matter who he/she is).’
22
The distribution of -na
• Disjunction marker:
(14) Mary-na John-i sakwa-lul
M.-or
J.-Nom apple-Acc
‘Mary or John ate the apple.’
mek-ess-ta.
eat-past-decl
• Adverb of quantification:
(15)
Mary-nun
acim-ey
ence-na
wuywu-lul
M.-Top
morning-loc
when-NA
milk-Acc
mashi-n-ta.
drink-non.pst-decl
‘Mary always drinks milk in the morning’ (For every situation in
the morning, Mary drinks milk in that situation.)
23
Distribution of -na
• Question particle:
(16) Nwukwu-ka
o-ess-na?
Nwukwu-Nom come-pst-Q
‘Did someone come?’ or ‘I wonder whether someone
came.’
• Second best choice reading:
(17) Yeonghwa-na po-ca.
movie-NA
watch-suggestive.
‘Let’s watch a movie (for we don’t have anything else
to do.)
24
Nwukwu vs. Amwu: Difference 1
•
Without –na, nwukwu can occur in questions, as shown in (18).
For this reason, nwukwu is treated as an indeterminate pronoun
in the literature.
(18) Nwukwu-ka
o-ess-ni?
who-nom
come-pst-Q
‘Who came?’ or ‘Did anybody come?’
•
In contrast, amwu cannot occur in questions, as shown in (19).
(19) *Amwu-ka
o-ess-ni?
who-nom
come-pst-Q
Intended: ‘Who came?’ or ‘Did anybody come?’
•
To simply things, I’ll not gloss nwukwu, amwu and -na.
25
Nwukwu vs. Amwu: Difference 2
•
Both nwukwu-na and amwu-na carry a universal QF. But only
amwu-na can carry an existential QF, in addition to a universal QF.
(20) nwukwu-na/amwu-na
ku
il-ul
hal-swuiss-ta.
nwukwu-NA/amwu-NA
that
work-acc do-can-decl.
‘Everybody can do the work (no matter who he/she is.)’
(21) Nwukwu-na
teylye o-la.
Nwukwu-NA
bring come-impr.
‘(You may) bring everyone regardless of who he/she is.’
(22) Amwu-na
teylye o-la.
Amwu-NA
bring
come-impr.
‘(You may) bring a person regardless of who he/she is.’
26
Nwukwu-na & amwu-na vs. any
• Unlike any phrases, both nwukwu-na and
amwu-na phrases can occur in extensional
contexts, i.e., contexts that do not involve
modal operators or if-conditionals.
(23)a.*John met anybody.
b. John will meet anybody.
c. ?John met ANYbody.
d. John met just anybody.
27
(24) John-un nwukwu-na man-ess-ta.
J.-top nwukwu-NA meet-pst-decl.
‘John met anyone regardless of who he/she is.’
(25) John-un amwu-na
man-ess-ta.
J.-top amwu-NA
meet-pst-decl.
‘John met a person regardless of who he/she is.’
28
Interim summary
•
Korean has two types of FC items:
nwukwu-na
amwu-na
+wh
-wh
Univ. QF only
both Univ. & Exist. QF
•
Unlike any NPs in English, both nwukwu-na and
amwu-na can occur in extensional contexts (even
without stress on them).
•
The morpheme –na occurs in various environments
including disjunction, universal quantification over
situations, and questions, and also carries a second
best choice implicature.  Not an ordinary disjunction.
29
Road map for the remainder of the talk
• First, we’ll derive on the FC effects of nwukwuna employing a choice functional approach.
(We’ll come back to the FC effects of amwu-na
later.)
• Second, we will discuss the welcome results of
the proposed analysis.
• Third, we’ll talk about the remaining issues.
30
A choice functional analysis of nwukwu-na
• The basic idea: The FC effects of nwukwu-na
arise from the combination of the following
elements:
(i) The mention of a nwukwu-na
(ii) Nwukwu
(iii) -na
31
Details of the proposal
– The mention of nwukwu-na introduces a choice
function variable f: that is, f means something like ‘a
way to choose.’
– Nwukwu denotes a set of individuals to which the
choice function applies (see Hamblin 1973).
– The morpheme -na is a universal quantifier that
ranges over choice functions, rather than individuals,
sets, or propositions.
– This morpheme also triggers an indifference
implicature that accompanies FC items.
32
The gist of the proposal
• The FC phenomena in Korean are
concerned with universally quantifying
over ways of choosing an individual from a
contextually salient set of individuals that
is denoted by the indeterminate pronoun
nwukwu.
33
What is a choice function?
• F is a choice function (CF) if it applies to a setdenoting expression and returns a specific or
unique individual in that set (Reinhart 1997).
(26) f<<et>, e> is a CF if Q<et>(f(P<et>)) = 1.
• The motivation for adopting a CF analysis is to
capture the behavior of wide-scope indefinites,
which is illustrated in (27) and (28).
34
Widest scope indefinites
(27) Each teacher overheard the rumor that
a student of mine had been called before
the dean. (Fodor and Sag 1982)
(28) Every one of those men moved to Paris
because some woman lived there.
(adapted from Abusch 1994).
35
What’s puzzling about the indefinites
in (27-28)
• The indefinites in these sentences are “stuck” in
an island, namely, a complex NP that consists of
a noun and its clausal complement, and an
adverbial clause.
• But they somehow seem to take scope over the
entire sentences, making them denote
propositions about some particular student of
the speaker and some particular woman living in
Paris, respectively.
36
Deriving the wide scope readings of (27-28)
• The indefinites in (27) and (28) introduce choice
function variables.
• These variables are left free in the semantic
computation until the end.
• At the end of the computational process, the
variables get existentially closed over (Heim
1982), thereby taking widest scope over the
entire sentence.
37
Application of a CF to a simple case
(29) Every student bought some book.
• Two readings of (29):
Reading 1: There is some particular book that
every student in the quantification domain
bought. (some > every)
Reading 2: Every student bought potentially
different books. (every > some)
38
• Logical forms for (29) under a choice functional analysis:
Reading 1: There is some function f such that it is a choice
function and, for all individual z, if z is a student, z
bought the result of applying f to the set of books.
(some > all)
Reading 2: For all individual z, if z is a student, there is
some function f such that f is a choice function and z
bought the result of applying f to the set of books.
(all > some)
39
Kratzerian CF analysis
• Departing from Reinhart (1997), Kratzer
(1998) claims that a CF contains a free
individual variable inside them.
(30) f<<et>, e> is a CF if Q<et>(f(<x, P<et>>)) = 1.
• The free individual variable inside a CF
reflects the point of view from which the
selection of the individual is made.
40
Application of a CF analysis to Korean
FC items
Consider (31), which contains nwukwu-na.
(31) John-un nwukwu-na man-ess-ta.
J.-top nwukwu-NA meet-pst-decl.
‘John met anyone regardless of who he/she is.’
41
Interpretive procedure for (31)
– The mention of nwukwu-na introduces a choice
function variable.
– Nwukwu denotes a set of individuals to which the
choice function applies.
– The morpheme -na is a universal quantifier that
ranges over choice functions.
– It is also responsible for the indifference reading, i.e.,
the subject John didn’t care about whom to meet.
42
Logical form of (31)
• For all f such that f is a choice function, John met the
result of applying f to the contextually salient set of
individuals [and John didn’t care about the identity of f,
i.e., how each individual that he met was selected].
• The bracketed part carries indifference conventional
implicature triggered by –na.
• How do we know whether it’s a conventional implicature?
Because it’s not cancelable, as shown in (32).
43
Non-cancellability of the implicature
triggered by nwukwu-na
• Below ‘#’ indicates contradiction or semantic
anomaly:
(32)
John-un
nwukwu-na man-ess-ta.
J.-top
nwukwu-NA meet-pst-decl.
‘John met anyone regardless of who he/she is.’
#Sashil, ku-nun thukjeong-in-man man-ess-ta
Actually, he-top certain-person-only meet-pst-decl
‘Actually, he only met certain people.’
44
Welcome results
• Welcome result 1: the proposed analysis can deal with
the ambiguity that has to do with attitude ascriptions.
• Description of the phenomenon: FC items can reflect
either the speaker’s indifference or the sentence
subject’s indifference (Choi 2005). Consider (32).
(32) Nwukwu-na teylye o-la.
Nwukwu-NA bring come-impr.
‘(You may) bring anyone you like.’ Subject-oriented.
‘(You may) bring anyone I like.’ Speaker-oriented.
45
• Under the proposed analysis, the two readings of (32)
arise because the choice function introduced by the
mention of nwukwu-na contains a free individual variable
that serves as the attitude holder.
• Since this variable is free, it can be bound by a
contextually salient individual.
• The value of this variable can be either the speaker or
the sentential subject, because the content of a sentence
can reflect either the speaker’s or the agent’s
perspective on things.
46
Welcome result 2
• Under the proposed analysis, there is no need to
resort to modal operators in interpreting
sentences containing FC items in Korean.
• This is because the FC effect is not induced by a
modal operator; rather, it comes from the
combination of three things:
(i) the mention of a FC item nwukwu-na;
(ii) the semantics of nwukwu; and
(iii) the semantic contributions of –na.
47
Welcome result 3
•
The proposed analysis can also readily derive a
concessive reading or a scalar implicature that seems
to accompany nwukwu-na in some contexts.
(33) John-un
nwukwu-na
man-ess-ta.
J.-top
nwukwu-NA
meet-pst-decl.
‘John met anyone regardless of who he/she is.’
•
Implicature of (33): John met even the least attractive or
interesting person, i.e., the lowest individual on the scale.
•
Under the present analysis, this implicature is expected
because indifference can generate a scalar interpretation
(but not the other way around).
48
Comparison with existing accounts
• Y. Lee (1999): In spirit, it’s very similar to the
proposed analysis.
Core idea:
– The wh indeterminate denotes an open set of
individuals.
– The semantics of -na involves “a choice on a scale.”
49
Problems with Y. Lee (1999)
•
Not every nwukwu-na carries such a scalar implicature;
it’s more about indifference.
• The analysis is not compositional: it doesn’t say much
about how the semantics of an indeterminate pronoun
and that of –na combine together to produce the FC
effects.
• Also, it doesn’t say where exactly the universal
quantificational reading that accompanies nwukwu-na
originates from. In fact, it explicitly argues that the Univ.
QF doesn’t come from –na.
50
Choi (2005)
• -na is a typical logical disjunction marker.
• Each sentence that contains nwukwu-na or amwu-na
contains an implicit buletic modal operator that quantifies
over the sentential subject’s desire worlds.
• This operator takes scope over the disjunction, so when
it applies distributively over the disjunction, the sentence
ends up having an indefinite conjunction.
• Opbl (P or Q) = Opbl P and Opbl Q.
51
Problems with Choi (2005)
• It fails to derive the indifference reading.
• Doesn’t say exactly what is responsible for
the presence of the buletic modal operator
in the sentence.
• Also, it can’t derive speaker-oriented
indifference readings.
52
Remaining issues
• Issue 1: How to derive the existential
quantificational readings of amwu-na phrases.
• Problem: Under the proposed analysis, -na is a
universal quantifier over choice functions that
are introduced the mention of a FC item. This
incorrectly predicts that amwu-na will also have
universal readings only. (See appendix for some
possible lines to pursue.)
53
Remaining issue 2
• How to ensure that the free individual
variable inside a CF introduced by the
mention of nwukwu gets bound either by
the speaker or by the sentential subject.
• What produces which reading and why?
54
Remaining issue 3
•
What do Korean facts tell us about FC across languages?
For instance, what about English?:
•
In the literature, it’s been noted that any NPs and wh-ever
expressions share many properties (von Fintel 2000, Horn
2000):
(34) I can meet with anyone who’s willing to meet with me.
(35) I can meet with whoever is willing to meet with me.
•
Whatever in (35) looks a lot like nwukwu-na.
•
Would it be possible to apply the proposed analysis of
nwukwu-na to whoever (or whatever)?
55
Questions on parsing
• According to the proposed analysis, apparent logical
connectives such as –na in Korean behave like some sort of a
pragmatic quantifier whose domain is formed based on the
speaker’s or subject’s attitudes.
• These operators presumably come into play after the pure
semantic computation is complete.
– How are these operators represented in the computational
system that interprets human language?
– How does the parser recognize them? Are they marked
differently than ordinary quantifiers?
56
Summary and Conclusion
• FC refers to a phenomenon in which the truth of a sentence is
guaranteed regardless of the choice of an individual at issue.
• Korean provides a nice window into the ingredients for FC:
– The FC items consist of an indeterminate pronoun nwukwu and an
apparent disjunction marker –na.
– Together, they produce universal quantification over ways of choosing
an individual from a contextually salient set.
• If correct, the proposed analysis suggests that, across languages,
FC effects are derived compositionally via the intriguing interactions
between an indeterminate pronoun, a silent choice function, and a
pragmatic quantifier over choice functions.
57
Appendix
58
How to derive existential readings of
amwu-na?
• A possible rendition of the proposal: depending on
the type of its argument, -na can be either a universal
quantifier or an existential quantifier.
• When it occurs with nwukwu or a potentially [+wh]
pronoun, it gets interpreted as a universal Q; when it
occurs with amwu or a [-wh] pronoun, it gets interpreted
as an existential Q.
• But this idea isn’t so attractive, because the semantics of
-na changes rather dramatically depending on what it
combines with.
59
A better solution?
• Perhaps we could attend to the fact that nwukwu can be
a question word with the [+wh] feature on it, but amwu
cannot be a question word?
• The idea: What makes -na a universal quantifier is the
[+wh] feature on nwukwu.
– na is normally just disjunction or existential quantifier but [+ wh]
denotes an maximalizing or exhaustive operator.
– Since maximalizers are anti-additive, when [+wh] combines with
disjunction, it turns it into conjunction, thereby yielding universal
quantification.
60
Another possible idea
• Nwukwu is a true indeterminate pronoun which
denotes a Hamblin set of individuals, but amwu
is a true indefinite pronoun whose core meaning
has to do with domain-widening in the sense of
Kadmon and Landman (1993).
• So the two FC items might require slight different
treatments.
61
Another remaining issue
• How to deal with Korean NPIs, which are
made up of an indeterminate pronoun plus
conjunctive marker –to, which means
‘also/even/and’: (i) nwukwu-to; (ii) amwuto.
• NPIs carry scalar implicatures, i.e., the
even the lowest guy on the scale reading,
as shown earlier.
62
• Where do these implicatures come from in the
case of nwukwu-to or amwu-to?
 The implicatures will have to come from the
particle –to, since we would want to maintain
that the pronouns only provides a set of
individuals to which a CF can apply.
 If -to triggers the scalar implicatures, what
kind of quantification is involved in NPIs, both in
Korean and across languages?
63