THE SEMANTICS
OF PERSPECTIVE-SENSITIVITY
Lisa Bylinina
Meertens Insitutuut • bylinina@gmail.com
!
Yasutada Sudo
U C L • y.sudo@ucl.ac.uk
A D V A N C E D LO L I C O U R S E • E S S L L I 2 0 1 5
@ U N I V E R S I TAT PA M P E U FA B R A , B A R C E LO N A
10—14 August, 2015
PRACTICAL MATTERS
Lecturers
> Lisa Bylinina (Meertens Instituut)
> Yasutada Sudo (UCL)
> Guest lecturer: Eric McCready (Aoyama Gakuin University)
Slides: bylinina.com/#essli; www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucjtudo/
The plan
> Lecture 1 (Lisa): Introduction to perspective-sensitivity
> Lecture 2 (Yasu): Shifting in attitude contexts and elsewhere
> Lecture 3 (Yasu): Come and go
> Lecture 4 (Eric): Epistemic modality and evidentials
> Lecture 5 (Lisa): Subjectivity and perspective
T H E C O U R S E I S B A S E D O N O U R ( B Y L I N I N A , M C C R E A DY,
SUDO) ONGOING WORK ON PERSPECTIVE-SENSITIVITY
PLAN FOR TODAY
> The phenomenon of perspective-sensitivity
> Identifying perspective-sensitive items
> Contexts of perspective-shifting
> Perspective-sensitive items vs. indexicals
> Perspective-sensitive items vs. pronominal anaphora
> Towards a theory of perspective-sensitivity
THIS LECTURE WILL BE MORE EMPIRICAL THAN
THEORETICAL
IT WILL SET THE PRELIMINARY EMPIRICAL GROUND FOR
T H E T H E O R E T I C A L PA R T
THE PHENOMENON
Eric
Lisa
Tree
Yasu
(1) Eric is standing to the left of the tree
Paraphrase: Eric is standing to the left of the tree
looking from the perspective centre’s location
> TRUE from Lisa’s point of view
> FALSE from Yasu’s point of view
( 1 ) I S O N LY T R U E O R FA L S E W I T H R E S P E C T TO T H E LO C AT I O N
OF THE PERSPECTIVE CENTRE (PC)
THE PHENOMENON
> Perspective-Sensitivity is a type of context-sensitivity:
> Who counts as a PC is largely determined by the context
!
> Perspective-sensitivity is triggered by certain lexical
items such as left — Perspective Sensitive Items (PSIs)
> Compare (1) and (2):
Eric
Lisa
Tree
Yasu
(2) Eric is standing to the north of the tree
IDENTIFYING PSIS
Two (closely related) criteria:
> Default speaker-orientation
> Caveat 1: For some PSIs — e.g. predicates of
personal taste — the default PC has a generic
flavour (Moltmann 2010, Pearson 2013)
> Caveat 2: In some contexts — e.g. narration — the
default perspective is not the speaker’s
> Caveat 3: Anaphors
> ‘Shiftability’
> Shifting patterns set PSIs apart from other
context-sensitive expressions
SPEAKER-ORIENTATION
Eric
Lisa
Tree
Yasu
(1) Eric is standing to the left of the tree.
> Lisa utters (1) talking to her daughter Vera over the phone
> You, as an observer, would say that what Lisa said was true
> This is because by default the PC is taken to be the
speaker
> It would be strange to take Yasu’s perspective in this case
SPEAKER-ORIENTATION?
Eric
Lisa
Tree
Yasu
(3) Yasu, look! Eric is standing to the right of the tree.
> Say, Lisa utters (3). Still, right can be interpreted under
Yasu’s perspective.
> In a narrative context, the PC can be the protagonist
rather than the narrator:
(4) [Yasu was walking in the wood for two hour when he saw something strange:]
Eric was standing to the right of the tree!
SPEAKER-ORIENTATION?
> In a narrative context, the PC can be the protagonist
rather than the narrator:
(5)
[Yasu was walking in the wood for two hour when he saw something strange:]
Eric was standing to the right of the tree!
> There seems to be some variation within the class of
PSIs in how strong the speaker-orientation is:
(6)
[Looking at the cat finishing its food:]
(Stephenson 2007)
# Look! This cat food is tasty!
> (6) has an inference that the speaker has actually tried
the cat food, which means tasty is evaluated from the
speaker’s perspective.
PERSPECTIVE SHIFTING
Eric
Lisa
Tree
Yasu
(7) Yasu thinks Eric is standing to the left of the tree.
> It is possible, if not required, to take Yasu’s perspective in
understanding left in (7).
> If Lisa utters (7), she is reporting Yasu’s false belief (Eric is
standing to the right of the tree from Yasu’s perspective)
> This difference between (1) and (7) is one of the core facts
we want a theory of perspective-sensitivity to account for.
PERSPECTIVE-SENSITIVE ITEMS
•
Relative locative expressions
> e.g. to the left means ‘to the left looking from PC’s
location’ (Mitchell 1986; Partee 1989; Oshima 2006)
to/on the left, to/on the right, leftward, rightward,
forward, backward, in front, in back, behind, across,
nearby, close by, distant, remote, local, regional,
clockwise, up, down, upstream, downstream, uphill,
downhill, upwind, downwind, around the corner, within
reach, outbound, inbound, come, go, approach
PERSPECTIVE-SENSITIVE ITEMS
•
Relative socio-cultural expressions
> e.g. foreigner is ‘somebody from a different country
from the PC’ (Mitchell 1986; Partee 1989; Oshima 2006)
foreigner, foreign, at home, visiting (scholar), out of
town, immigrant, alien, fellow citizen/student/passenger,
compatriot, home ground, away/road game, home
game, heathen
(8) Yasu is a foreigner.
> TRUE from Lisa’s perspective
> FALSE from Wataru’s perspective
PERSPECTIVE-SENSITIVE ITEMS
•
Perspective-sensitive anaphora
> anaphors refer to the PC
•
Japanese zibun
(Abe 1997; Kuno 1972, 1973, 1987; Kuno & Kaburaki 1977; Nishigauchi 2014; Sells 1987)
•
Icelandic sig
(Thrainsson 1976; Sigurðsson 1990; Reuland 2006; Hicks, 2009)
•
(9)
Tamil ta(a)n (Sundaresan 2012)
zibun-wa
ZIBUN-TOP
hoorensoo-ga kirai desu.
SPINACH-NOM
‘I don’t like spinach’
HATE
(JAPANESE)
COP.FORMAL
PERSPECTIVE-SENSITIVE ITEMS
Subjective predicates
•
i) Predicates of personal taste (PPTs)
!
!
> e.g. interesting means ‘interesting to the PC’
(Lasersohn 2005; Stephenson 2007; Anand 2009; Pearson 2013)
fun, boring, tedious, interesting, tasty, disgusting, pretty
!
ii) Vague predicates
> e.g. expensive means ‘expensive according to PC’s judgments’
(Kennedy 2013; Fleisher 2013; Bylinina to appear)
wide, tall, expensive, heavy
PERSPECTIVE-SENSITIVE ITEMS
•
Epistemic modals
> e.g. might means ‘it’s compatible with what PC knows that p’
might, may, possibly, likely
•
Evidentials
> e.g. HEARSAY-EVID means ‘the PC has second-hand evidence
that p’.
Japanese evidentials:
•
•
•
•
rashii (inferential)
soo-da (hearsay)
mitai-da (inferential)
yoo-da (inferential)
•
•
STEM-soo-da (inference
based on direct perception)
ppoi (inference based on
direct perception)
PERSPECTIVE-SENSITIVE ITEMS
> Relative locative expressions
> Relative socio-cultural expressions
> Perspective-sensitive anaphora
> Subjective predicates
> Epistemic modals
> Evidentials
C O N T E X T- S E N S I T I V I T Y O F T H E S E I T E M S I S A C K N O W L E D G E D I N T H E
L I T E R AT U R E , B U T T H E P O I N T I S R A R E LY ( I F AT A L L ) M A D E T H AT I T I S O F
T H E S A M E K I N D, I . E . P E R S P E C T I V E - S E N S I T I V I T Y I N O U R S E N S E
The plan:
> Uniformity of this class (+ some differences)
> Distinguishing PSIs
! from other kinds of context-sensitivity:
• Indexicals;
• Pronominal anaphora
SHIFTING IN ATTITUDES
> PC = subject of the attitude verb (
= obligatorily)
(10)
Yasu thinks Eric is standing to the left of the tree.
(11)
Vera thinks that Lisa is a foreigner.
(12)
Mary-wa
John-ga
MARY-TOP
JOHN-NOM ZIBUN-ACC
(to the left of the tree looking from Yasu’s / my point of view)
(≈ Vera thinks that Lisa is from a different country than Vera / me)
zibun-o
aisiteiru
to omotteimasu.
LOVE
C
THINK.POLITE
‘Mary thinks that John loves her/me.’
(13)
(14)
Vera thinks that orxata is tasty. (tasty to Vera)
Lisa thinks that this dress is expensive. (according to Lisa’s standards)
(15)
Yasu thinks that it might be raining. (it is compatible with what Yasu knows)
(16)
Sam-wa
SAM-TOP
ame-ga
RAIN-NOM
fut-tei-soo-da
FAL-PROG-EVID-COP
to itta.
C SAID
‘Sam said it was likely to be raining.’ (Sam finds it likely)
SHIFTING IN QUESTIONS
> PC = hearer (
(17)
= obligatorily)
Was Eric standing to the left of the tree?
(≈ Was John standing on the left from your / my point of view?)
(18)
Is Eric a foreigner?
(≈ Is Eric from a different country than you / me?)
(19)
zibun-ga
yaru
no?
(20)
ZIBUN-NOM DO
Q
‘Are you going to do it?’
zibun-ga
yarimasu
ZIBUN-NOM DO.FORMAL
‘Should I do it?’
(21)
Is the movie interesting? (≈ Is the movie interesting to you?)
(22)
(23)
Is John tall? (≈ In your judgment, does John count as a tall person?)
Might John have left? (Is it compatible with what you know?)
(24)
?Taro-wa Tokyoo-ni kaetta
soo-na
no?
TARO-TOP TOKYO-TO WENT.BACK HEARSAY.EVID
Q
‘Do you have hearsay evidence that Taro went back to Tokyo?’
ka?
Q
SHIFTING IN CONDITIONALS
> PC = subject of the consequent (optionally)
(25)
(26)
If a man on the left of the tree moves, Yasu will be startled.
If a foreigner comes in, Yasu will be startled.
(27)
zibun-no hahaoya-ga
ZIBUN-GEN
MOTHER-NOM
kuru
nara,
COME
IF
John-wa
JOHN-TOP
kimasen.
COME.NEG.POLITE
‘If his / my mother comes, John will not come.’
(28)
(29)
If a handsome man comes in, Lisa will be startled.
If Lisa buys an expensive backpack, Yasu will be startled.
(30)
If it might rain, Vera will take an umbrella.
(31)
ame-ga
furu
ppoi
RAIN-NOM
FALL
EVID.DIR.INF IF
nara,
John-wa
kasa-o
motteiku.
JOHN-TOP
UMBRELLA-ACC TAKE
‘If it looks (to John / me) like it will rain, John will take an umbrella.’
> The same observed with other adjuncts (temporal clauses)
VP-INTERNAL POSITIONS
> PC = subject of the clause (optionally)
(32)
Yasu introduced a man on the left of the tree to Vera.
(33)
Yasu introduced a foreigner to Vera.
(34)
John-wa
JOHN-TOP
[zibun-o
ZIBUN-ACC
shitteiru] otoko-o
KNOW
MAN-ACC
shootaishimashita.
INVITED.POLITE
‘John invited a man who knew him / me.’
(35)
Yasu was reading an interesting book.
(36)
Vera talked to a man who might be her mother's old friend.
(37)
Lisa bought an expensive backpack.
(38)
John-wa
JOHN-TOP
[roshiago-o
RUSSIAN-ACC
hanashi-soo-na] otoko-o
SPEAK.EVID.INF-COP
MAN-ACC
shootaishita.
INVITED
‘John invited a man who he / I though might speak Russian.’
VP-INTERNAL POSITIONS
> PC = linearly preceding internal argument (optionally)
(38)
(39)
Yasu introduced Lisa to the man on the left.
Yasu introduced Lisa to a foreigner.
(40)
John-wa
JOHN-TOP
Mary-ni
MARY-TO
zibun-no hon-o
ZIBUN-GEN
BOOK-ACC
agemashita.
GAVE.POLITE
‘John gave Mary John’s / Mary’s / my book.’
(41)
Eric introduced Yasu to an attractive linguist.
(42)
Yasu gave Vera an expensive book.
(43)
Yasu introduced Eric to someone who might be a murderer.
(44)
John-wa
Mary-ni
roshiago-o
JOHN-TOP
MARY-TO
otoko-o
shookaishita.
MAN-ACC
RUSSIAN-ACC
hanas-e-soo-na
SPEAK-CAN-EVID.DIR.INF-COP
INTRODUCED
‘John introduced to Mary a man who looked (to me / John / Mary) like a Russian speaker.’
NO SHIFTING IN SUBJECT
> PSIs in subject-internal positions can not take the object as a PC:
(45)
[A man on the left of the tree] introduced Yasu to my friend.
(≠ On the left of the tree from Yasu’s point of view)
(46)
A foreigner introduced Eric to my friend.
(≠ A person from a different country than Eric)
(47)
[zibun-o
ZIBUN-ACC
shitteiru] otoko-ga John-o
shootaishita.
KNOW
INVITED
MAN-NOM
JOHN-ACC
‘A man who knew *John / me invited John.’
(48)
[A handsome man] introduced Yasu to my friend.
(≠ A man who Yasu finds handsome introduced Yasu to my friend)
(49)
[A man who might be a murderer] introduced Yasu to my friend.
(≠ A man who Yasu thought could be a murderer introduced Yasu to my friend)
(50)
[roshiago-o
ZIBUN-ACC
hanashi-soo-na] otoko-ga John-o
SPEAK-EVID.INF-COP
MAN-NOM
JOHN-ACC
shootaishita.
INVITED
‘A man who *John / I thought might speak Russian invited John.’
NO SHIFTING IN SUBJECT?
> Potential counterexample (Phillipe Schlenker, p.c.):
(51)
Foreigners hate British government.
> We think this shifting possibility has to do with the genericity of
the sentence
> Compare an episodic statement:
(52)
A foreigner called his British friend.
> The shifted interpretation is harder to get in (53).
> Shifted interpretations of all classes of PSIs are available in
generic contexts
GENERIC CONTEXTS
> Generics in the broad sense — deontics, always
(53)
Local bars are the best.
(54)
Bad books don’t sell well.
(55)
zibun-no ie-ga
ZIBUN-GEN
HOUSE-NOM
ichiban-da.
BEST-COP
‘One’s own house is the best.’
(56)
People who might have contracted an infection abroad are subject
to quarantine.
(57)
kaigai-de kansensyoo-ni
ABROAD-LOC INFECTION-DAT
kakatta
CONTRACTED
rasii
EVID
hito-wa
minna
PERSON-TOP ALL
kakuris-are-ru.
QUARANTINE-PASS-PRES
‘People who have reasons to believe that they might have contracted an
infection abroad are subject to quarantine.’
SUMMING UP SO FAR
> PSIs shift (at least) in the following contexts:
> Under attitude verbs > In conditionals
> In questions
> VP-internally
> In generic contexts
> The shift is sometimes optional, sometimes obligatory
> Always optional (class 1): spatial, socio-cultural, anaphora
> Sometimes obligatory (class 2): subjective, modals, evidentials
Attitude
contexts
Class 1
Class 2
◇
◻
Conditiona
Questions
VP-internal
ls
◇
◻
◇
◇
◇
◇
(◇=shift possible;
Generic
◇
◇
=shift obligatory)
WHAT SHOULD WE DO?
> We said that perspective-sensitivity is a kind of contextsensitivity and then looked at the shifting profile of PSIs
> There are other items that are context-sensitive:
> Indexicals (for example, I)
> Pronominal anaphora (for example, he)
> Should we reduce perspective-sensitivity to one of these
phenomena?
> Depends on how similar to PSIs they are
The plan:
> Compare PSIs and indexicals
> Compare PSIs and pronominal anaphora
> Preview of the analysis of perspective-sensitivity
> (We will leave the account for class 1 vs. class 2 distinction for L5)
PSIS VS. INDEXICALS
> Indexicals — in particular, 1P pronouns (I) — show speakerorientation, quite like PSIs.
> However, they do so in a much more rigid way than PSIs:
> With a sufficient prior context the default PC can be
somebody other than the speaker.
> For instance, in a narrative context, it is natural to take the
PC to be the main protagonist, rather than the narrator.
> This is virtually impossible with 1P pronouns, no matter how
rich the context is.
> In matrix contexts, the denotations of indexicals are fixed by
the current context of utterance.
PSIS VS. INDEXICALS
> There are language where indexicals shift (‘indexical
shifting’) (Kaplan 1977; Schlenker 1999, 2003; Anand 2006; Sudo 2012)
!
(58)
!
(Amharic)
!
!
> They only shift in a subset of attitude contexts in a subset
of languages.
> They do not shift in questions.
> They do not shift in non-attitude modal contexts.
INDEXICAL-SHIFTING CONTEXTS
(SUNDARESAN 2012)
PSIS VS. INDEXICALS
Indexicals
PSIs
Attitude
contexts
Questions
✓/*
✓
*
✓
Conditiona
VP-internal
ls
*
✓
*
✓
Generic
*
✓
> Perspective shifting is much more pervasive and is
observed in languages and constructions where
indexicals do not shift.
> We conclude perspective shifting can not be reduced
to indexical shifting.
PSIS AND PRONOUNS
> Partee (1989) identifies three classes of uses that 3P
pronouns and PSIs share:
> Deictic uses
> Discourse-anaphoric uses
> Bound-variable uses
PRONOUNS
(59)
(60)
(61)
D E I C T I C O R D E M O N S T R AT I V E
Who’s he?
DISCOURSE-ANAPHORIC
A woman walked in. She sat down.
B O U N D VA R I A B L E
Every man believed he was right.
PSIS
(62)
(63)
Eric visited a local bar.
D E I C T I C O R D E M O N S T R AT I V E
(i) Utterance location
DISCOURSE-ANAPHORIC
(ii) Wherever Eric was at the relevant time
Every sports fan in the country was
at a local bar watching the playoffs.
( M I T C H E L L 1 9 8 6 ; PA R T E E 1 9 8 9 )
B O U N D VA R I A B L E
PSIS AND PRONOUNS
> Bound-variable uses are available for all PSIs:
(64)
Nobody introduced a man on the left to my friend.
(≈ Nobody introduced a man on the left from their / my perspective to my friend)
(65)
Nobody introduced a foreigner to my friend.
(≈ Nobody introduced someone from a different country than them / me)
(66)
daremo
ANYBODY
[zibun-o
ZIBUN-ACC
shitteiru] otoko-o
KNOW
MAN-ACC
shootaishimasendeshita.
INVITED.POLITE.NEG
‘Nobody invited a man who knew them / me.’
(67)
Nobody read an interesting book.
(≈ Nobody read a book that’s interesting for them / me.)
(68)
Nobody talked to a man who might be his mother’s old friend.
(≈ Nobody talked to a man they / I thought could be his mother’s old friend.)
(69)
daremo [roshiago-o
ANYBODY
RUSSIAN-ACC
hanashi-soo-na]
otoko-o
SPEAK-EVID.INF-COP MAN-ACC
shootaishinakatta.
INVITED.NEG
‘Nobody invited a man who they / I thought might speak Russian.’
PSIS AND PRONOUNS
> Partee (1989) identifies more similarities between
perspective and pronominal anaphora:
> Weak-Crossover effects:
PRONOUNS
(70)
Only hisi top aide got a good picture of Reagani
(71) #?Only hisi top aide got a good picture of every senatori
(72)
Every senatori directed a smile at hisi top aide
PSIS
(73)
Only the nearesti photographer got a good picture of Reagani
(74) #?Only the nearesti photographer got a good picture of every senatori
(75)
Every senatori directed a smile at the nearesti photographer
PSIS AND PRONOUNS
> Partee (1989) identifies more similarities between perspective
and pronominal anaphora:
> ‘Donkey anaphora’
PRONOUNS
(77)
(78)
(79)
Every man who owns a donkey bits it
PSIS
Every man who stole a car abandoned it 2 hours later.
Every man who stole a car abandoned it within 20 miles.
> PC component of PSIs can co-vary with time/location of
event in the relative clause of the subject
> This is analogous with the interpretation of it in (64),
where it co-varies with the donkey in the subject rel.cl.
PSIS AND PRONOUNS
Summing up so far:
> Partee (1989) identifies similarities between perspective
and pronominal anaphora:
> Deictic or demonstrative uses
> Discourse-anaphoric uses
> Bound-variable uses
> Weak-crossover effects
> ‘Donkey anaphora’
Consequences:
> These observations naturally follow if PSIs come with a
silent anaphoric pronoun (syntactically or semantically)
> This ‘pronominal approach’ to PSIs would analyse, say,
local as differing minimally from local to him / her
> However, there are reasons for scepticism
PSIS VS. PRONOUNS
> Partee’s (1989) observations that cast doubt on this approach:
> It’s not always possible to overtly express the alleged
pronominal argument of PSIs. In some cases, where it is
expressed overtly, it looks like an adjunct rather than an
argument:
!
(80)
!
!
!
!
!
!
(81)
(82)
Eric had a black spot on the middle of his forehead.
To the left of it (from Eric’s point of view / from an observer’s
point of view) was a green ‘A.’
...*? to the left of it from / for him
[foreign to them/that country], [a stranger to them/that
country], *[a foreigner to them/that country]
> Overall, there seems to be no uniform manner in which PSIs
express the hidden pronominal argument
PSIS VS. PRONOUNS
> Partee’s (1989) observations that cast doubt on this approach:
> Even for PSIs that can take an overt argument, there are
configurations where its overt realisation is forbidden:
(83)
(84)
In all my travels, whenever I have called for a doctor, one has
arrived (*there) within an hour.
In all my travels, whenever I have called for a doctor from
any place, one has arrived there within an hour.
> The PSI in (83) can not combine with an explicit pronominal
argument, unless an overt antecedent for this pronoun is added
T H E S E C O N S I D E R AT I O N S A R E S U G G E S T I V E , B U T N O T
CONCLUSIVE.
W E A D D M O R E E M P I R I C A L A R G U M E N T S F O R PA R T E E ’ S H U N C H
PSIS VS. PRONOUNS
New arguments against the pronominal analysis
!
!
!
IN THEIR ANAPHORIC USES, 3P PRONOUNS IN
P R I N C I P L E C A N R E F E R B A C K TO A N Y I N D I V I D U A L S T H AT
H A V E B E E N M E N T I O N E D I N T H E D I S C O U R S E ( A S FA R A S
T H E Φ - F E AT U R E S M ATC H ) , W H I L E P S I S A R E M U C H L E S S
FLEXIBLE IN THIS REGARD
!
> There are thematic restrictions on DPs that PSIs can anchor to;
> PSIs obey ‘shift-together locally’
(two PSIs occurring in the same ‘domain’ must refer to the same PC)
(cf. Anand & Nevins 2004, Shklovsky & Sudo 2014 — ‘shifttogether’ for indexicals)
THEMATIC RESTRICTIONS
> For instance, 3P pronouns can refer back to the comitative
phrase, while PSIs cannot:
(85)
I went to a restaurant with Yasu yesterday. He was a little tired.
(86)
I went to a restaurant with Yasu yesterday.
a. The man sitting on the left was eating natto.
(on the left from my / *Yasu’s perspective)
b. The waiter was a foreigner.
(from a different country from me / *Yasu)
c. The duck was delicious.
(tasted good to me / *Yasu)
d. It must have been around 9 pm.
( It is compatible with what I know / *Yasu knows)
THEMATIC RESTRICTIONS
> For instance, 3P pronouns can refer back to the comitative
phrase, while PSIs cannot:
(87)
[I went to a restaurant with Yasu yesterday.]
sono
THIS
mise-wa
ima
RESTAURANT-TOP NOW
totemo
ninki
VERY
POPULAR
rashii
EVID.HEARSAY
‘This restaurant is very popular now, I hear / *Yasu hears.’
(88)
Stas-ga
STAS-NOM
tegami-ga
LETTER-NOM
Vera-to
VERA-WITH
dekake
GO.OUT
yootoshiteita-ra, zibun-ate-no
WAS.ABOUT.TO-WHEN,
ZIBUN-ADDRESSED-GEN
maikondekita
ARRIVED.UNEXPECTEDLY
‘As Stas was leaving home with Vera, a letter addressed to him / *her came in.’
> Unlike zibun, the regular 3P pronoun kare can refer to the
comitative phrase in a sentence like (74).
THEMATIC RESTRICTIONS
> The restriction is not specific about comitative phrases.
Consider conjoined subjects:
(89)
[Vera is Russian, Eric is American] Vera and Eric met a foreigner.
> (75) can’t describe a situation where they met an American
> In contrast, 3P pronouns can refer to one of the conjuncts:
(90)
Vera and Eric met her violin teacher.
(91)
Vera-to
VERA-AND
Eric-wa
ERIC-TOP
zibun-no sensei-ni
ZIBUN-GEN
TEACHER-DAT
atta
MET
‘Vera and Eric met their teacher’ / *’Vera and Eric met her teacher’
(92)
Vera-to
VERA-AND
Eric-wa
ERIC-TOP
kanojo-no
SHE-GEN
sensei-ni
TEACHER-DAT
atta
MET
’Vera and Eric met her teacher’
+ more restrictions we don’t know about yet
SHIFT-TOGETHER LOCALLY
> Two 3P pronouns (in some local domain) can generally have
different referents:
(93)
Erice said that Yasuw broke hise,w computer in hise,w office.
> Two PSIs in the same ‘domain’ must refer to the same PC:
(94)
[Wei is from China but not the speaker. Assume also that the speaker
and Wei are facing each other]
Wei talked to a foreigner on the left.
Speaker
Wei
Speaker
Wei
✓
*
*
✓
SHIFT-TOGETHER LOCALLY
> To establish that shift-together holds for PSIs as a group, we
need to check all possible combinations of PSIs of different
classes.
> For example, here’s a PPT and a socio-cultural PSI:
(95) Eric read a book written by a talented foreigner.
Speaker
Eric
Speaker
Eric
✓
*
*
✓
> We won’t do it here, but see (Bylinina, McCready & Sudo
2015a-c) for more data
SHIFT-TOGETHER LOCALLY
> Shift-together seems to hold for zibun:
(96)
John-wa
JOHN-TOP
Bill-ni [zibun-no hon-to
BILL-TO ZIBUN-GEN
zibun-no CD]-o miseta
BOOK-AND
ZIBUN-GEN CD-ACC
SHOWED
‘John showed Bill self’s book and self’s CD’
John
Bill
John
Bill
✓
*
*
✓
> But, in fact, mixed interpretations are pretty bad with kare too:
(97)
John-wa
JOHN-TOP
Bill-ni [kare-no
BILL-TO
HIS
hon-to
BOOK-AND
kare-no
HIS
‘John showed Bill his book and his CD.’
John
Bill
John
Bill
✓
??
??
✓
CD]-o miseta
CD-ACC
SHOWED
SHIFT-TOGETHER LOCALLY
> Moreover, if there are two different PSIs in positions similar to
those in (99), mixed interpretations seem to become possible:
(99)
John-wa
JOHN-TOP
miseta
SHOWED
Bill-ni [gakukokugo-no
BILL-TO FOREIGN.LANGUAGE-GEN
hon-to
BOOK-AND
zibun-no
CD]-o
ZIBUN-GEN CD-ACC
‘John showed Bill a foreign book and self’s CD.’
John
Bill
John
Bill
✓
✓
✓
✓
> Why is it the case that sometimes shift-together seems to be
observed, while in other cases it, apparently, isn’t?
> To figure this out, we need a better understanding of the
domains of perspective-shifting
SHIFTING DOMAINS
> Shift-together allows us to discern domains of shifting
> The direct object and the indirect object constitute different
domains, because shift-together is not observed:
(100) Eric introduced [DO a foreigner] [IO to a talented linguist].
(101) John-wa zibun-no musume-ni
JOHN-TOP
ZIBUN-GEN
shookaishimashita.
DAUGHTER-TO
zibun-no musuko-o
ZIBUN-GEN
SON-ACC
INTRODUCED
‘John introduced self's daughter to self's son.’
> In particular, VP as a whole is not a shifting domain (pace
Sundaresan 2012), given that the PC for a PSI used as a main
predicate does not shift to the subject.
SUMMING UP
> PSIs are different from indexicals:
Attitude
Conditio
VPQuestions
contexts
nals
internal
Indexicals
PSIs
✓/*
✓
*
✓
*
✓
*
✓
Generic
Tense
*
✓
*
✓/*
> Perspective is different from pronominal anaphora:
> Perspective-shifting is more restricted
> There seems to be a hierarchy of some sort:
!
Indexicals > Perspective > Pronominal anaphora
THEORETICAL PROSPECTS
The intuition
> Not reducing perspective-sensitivity to indexicality
or pronominal anaphora
> Instead, we want to treat these different kinds of
items as special cases of more general contextdependency
> Indexicals, third person pronouns and PSIs — and
context dependent items more generally — refer to
‘contexts’, although they refer to different aspects
of contexts
IMMEDIATE COMPLICATIONS
> We could just add a PC parameter to the interpretation function,
but:
Eric
Lisa
Tree
Yasu
> Orientation: Is Eris standing to the left of the tree from Lisa’s
perspective?
> Time:
(102) Every man who stole a car abandoned it 2 hours later.
(103) When Eric turned around, he saw a chair to the left of the table.
> World? Addressee?
> This will be discussed in Lecture 2.
OUTLOOK
> Today we had a lot of data
> We tried to empirically delineate the phenomenon and
characterise the class of PSIs
> We contrasted PSIs with indexicals and with pronominal
anaphora
> This means we cannot straightforwardly adopt existing
analyses of these other phenomena to PSIs
> Some work needs to be done to build the analysis of
perspective
> Moreover, PSIs do not form a totally homogeneous class
> We’ll look at shifting in more detail and formulate an
analysis
> We’ll look at different individual cases of PSIs to
understand the variation within the class of PSIs
REFERENCES
Abe, Jun. (1997) The locality of zibun and logophoricity. Technical report 08CE1001, Kanda University of
International Studies, Japan.
Anand, Pranav. (2006) De De Se. Ph.D. Thesis, MIT.
Anand, Pranav. (2009) Kinds of taste. Ms.
Anand, Pranav and Valentine Hacquard. (2013) Epistemics and attitudes. Semantics and Pragmatics 6(8): 1–59.
Anand, Pranav and Andrew Nevins. (2004) Shifty Indexicals in Changing Contexts. Proceedings of SALT 14,
CLC Publication: 20–37.
Bylinina, Lisa (to appear) Judge-dependence in degree constructions. Accepted for publication in Journal of
Semantics.
Fleisher, Nicholas (2013). The dynamics of subjectivity. In Proceedings of SALT 23, 276–294.
Hicks, Glyn. 2009. The derivation of anaphoric relations. Linguistik Aktuell. John Benjamins.
Kaplan, David. (1977) Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology
ofdemonstratives and other indexicals. Ms. [Published in Joseph Almog, John Perry, and Howard Wettstein
(eds.). (1989) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 481–563.]
Kennedy, C. (2013). Two sources of subjectivity: Qualitative assessment and dimensional uncertainty. Inquiry,
56(2-3), 258-277.
Kuno, Susumu. (1972) Pronominalization, Reflexivization, and Direct Discourse. Linguistic Inquiry, 3: 161–195.
Kuno, Susumu. (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Kuno,
Susumu. (1987) Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy. The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Kuno, Susumu & Etsuko Kaburaki. (1977) Empathy and Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 627–672.
Lasersohn, Peter. (2005) Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and
Philosophy 28: 643–686.
REFERENCES
Mitchell, Jonathan. (1986) The Formal Semantics of Point of View. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Moltmann, Friederike. (2010) Relative truth and the first person. Philosophical Studies 150: 187–220.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. (2014) Reflexive binding: awareness and empathy from a syntactic point of view. Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 23(2): 157–206.
Oshima, David Y. (2006) Perspectives in Reported Discourse. Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University.
Partee, Barbara. (1989) Binding Implicit Variables in Quantified Contexts. CLS 25: 342–365.
Pearson, Hazel. (2013) The Sense of Self: Topics in the Semantics of De Se Expressions. Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard
University.
Reuland, E. (2006) Icelandic Logophoric Anaphora, in The Blackwell Companion to Syntax (eds M. Everaert and H.
van Riemsdijk), Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, USA.
Schlenker, Philippe. (1999) Propositional Attitudes and Indexicality. Ph.D. Thesis, MIT.
Schlenker, Philippe. (2003) A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26(1): 29–120.
Sells, Peter. (1987) Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry, 18(3): 445–479.
Shklovsky, Kirill & Yasutada Sudo. (2014) The syntax of monsters. Linguistic Inquiry, 45(3): 381–402.
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1990. Long distance reflexives and moods in Icelandic. In Modern Icelandic syntax,
edited by Joan Maling and Annie Zaenen, pp. 309–346. Academic Press, New York.
Stephenson, Tamina. (2007) Towards a Theory of Subjective Meaning. Ph.D. Thesis, MIT.
Sudo, Yasutada. (2012) On the Semantics of Phi-Features on Pronouns. Ph.D. Thesis, MIT.
Sundaresan, Sandhya. (2012) Context and Co(reference) in the syntax and its interfaces. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Tromsø/Universität Stuttgart
Thrainsson, H. (1976). Reflexives and subjunctives in Icelandic. In Sixth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern
Linguistics Society.