connectives beyond · pdf file · 2016-06-28conditional values aims and methods ......

Connectivesbeyondconnecting

Convergingevidenceintheanalysisofdisjunction

CaterinaMauri – [email protected]

2ndUBLConference - TelAviv16/06/2016

Connectivesü Connectives play a crucial role in human reasoning and discourse,

and have therefore received attention in a number of differentresearch fields


Connectivesü Connectives play a crucial role in human reasoning and discourse,

and have therefore received attention in a number of differentresearch fields

A B

Connectives are mainly defined with respect to the specific semanticrelation they establish between two ormore entities or states of affairs.

Conjunction, contrast,alternative,etc.


However, connectives frequently provide information also regarding

…beyondconnecting



ü The speaker, who establishes the specific relation

…beyondconnecting


a

BA



ü The elements, which are linked through the connective

…beyondconnecting


a

BA



ü The elements, which are linked through the connective

…beyondconnecting


Reference-orientedproperties

CON N ECTIVERelationbetweenAandB

Furthernonconnecting

properties

Speaker-orientedproperties

a

BA

i) Speaker’sillocutionaryaim(e.g.interrogativevs.declarative)

ii) Speaker’scommitmenttowardstherelationitselfortowardsthelinkedelements(e.g.thelikelihoodassignedtotheactualoccurrenceoftherelation,commitmenttowardstheactualoccurrenceofeachelement)

ü SPEAKER-ORIENTEDPROPERTIES


i) Propertiesoftheset createdthroughtherelation(e.g.itcanbenon-exhaustiveorexhaustive))

ii) Propertiesoftheelementsoftheset(e.g.exemplarsofthecategory,mutualreplaceability)

ü REFERENCE-ORIENTEDPROPERTIES

Nonconnectingproperties

Aims andmethods


ü We aim to show that the NON CONNECTING PROPERTIES of connectivesplay a central role in explaining synchronic and diachronic patterns ofvariation

Aims andmethods



ü We will focus on DISJUNCTIVE CONNECTIVES: given their allegedly logicalmeaning, the literature on OR connectives mainly concerns truth-conditional values…

Aims andmethods



ü We will focus on DISJUNCTIVE CONNECTIVES: given their allegedly logicalmeaning, the literature on OR connectives mainly concerns truth-conditional values…

Ø little attention has been paid on the attested variation, both acrosslanguages andwithin languages

Ø little empirical evidenceØ the existence of non connecting properties has hardly been

recognized

Aims andmethods


ü We will adopt CONVERGING EVIDENCE METHODOLOGY, integratingtheoretical and empirical tools elaborated in:

Ø linguistictypology:cross-linguisticvariation,130-languagesample

Ø diachronictypology:diachronicvariationattestedinthetypologicalsample

Ø corpus-baseddiscourseanalysis:intra-linguisticvariation,analysisoftheSantaBarbaraCorpusofSpokenAmericanEnglish

Background:thedebate ondisjunction



Chierchia et al. 2001:the interpretation of disjunction is governed by the same rules underlying thedistribution of negative polarity items, such as any (i.e. or is interpretedinclusively in downward entailing contexts)→ the principles governing the correct interpretation of a disjunctive relationare innate and arepart of the UG.



Chierchia et al. 2001:the interpretation of disjunction is governed by the same rules underlying thedistribution of negative polarity items, such as any (i.e. or is interpretedinclusively in downward entailing contexts)→ the principles governing the correct interpretation of a disjunctive relationare innate and arepart of the UG.

Crain(2008:151):“children draw upon a priori knowledge of the meaning of 'or'. Thisconclusion is reinforced by the observation that all languages adopt thesame meaning of 'or' in certain structures.”




ü InclusiveP orQà P,Q, P&Qü Exclusive P orQà P,Q,not P&Q


Crain (2008: 151):The ability to recognize inclusive-or is a “linguistic property that emerges inchild language without decisive evidence from experience, and is common toall human languages”, and it is “a likely candidate for innate specification.”

“[…] why do children adopt the logical meaning of disjunction, inclusive-or,given that the majority of their experience directs them towards a differentmeaning of disjunction, namely an exclusive-or reading? […] children'sknowledge that disjunction is inclusive-or comes from universal grammar.”(Crain 2008: 2-3)


ü InclusiveP orQà P,Q, P&Qü Exclusive P orQà P,Q,not P&Q


➭ Discussiononthetruth-conditionsforthedisjunctiverelation,leadingtotwoassumptions:

✓ Theexclusivevs.inclusive distinctionisrelevanttonaturallanguages✓ Thenotionofinclusive-orisinnateanduniversal.



Aretheseassumptionssupportedbyempiricalevidence?





Assumptionsgenerate

expectations…

ü All languages have adisjunctive connective

ü Theinclusivevs.exclusive distinction is relevantforspeakersandwill therefore have linguisticreflections intheworld’s languages




Aretheseassumptionssupportedbyempiricalevidence?

Somesignificant quotesa) Kibrik (2004:547-48)onKuskokwimAthabaskan(Athabaskan,Alaska):

“there does not seem to exist any native way to express disjunction.[…] one of theUKA consultants said, after my repeated attempts to get him to translate a sentencesuch as Do you want tea or coffee?: “They did not offer you a choice in the old days””

b) Press(1975:145,167)onChemehuevi(Uto-Aztecan,USA- California):

“I have been unable to obtain any obvious alternative questions in Chemehuevi (oralternative statements for that matter). In order to ask something like "Is he here orthere? " in Chemehuevi, one simply asks two Yes-No questions in succession” [...]“Disjunctive coordination is even more restricted in Chemehuevi. The followingexamples illustrate available ways to get around thee lack of any syntactic ormorphological "or" […]”


Somesignificant quotesc) Kimball(1985:450)onKoasati (Muskogean,USA- Georgia):

“Certain conjunctive ideas, such as 'but,"because,' and ' if ' are handled by means ofthe verbal suffixes in the Consequence slot […]. On the other hand the idea of 'or' ismost generally indicated by putting the verbs between which there is a choicetogether in apposition.”

d) Post(2008:790)onGalo (Tibeto-Burman,India):

“Disjunctive coordination of declarative clauses is not well-coded by Galo grammar,and generally requires a paraphrastic construction involving a linking clause with asense like ‘if that is not the case, then’”.


Unfulfilled expectations

1“apposition”,“not well coded”

“nonativewaytoexpressdisjunction”


…itmeanslanguageswithoutOR!

Unfulfilled expectations

1“apposition”,“not well coded”

“nonativewaytoexpressdisjunction”…itmeanslanguages

withoutOR!


ü Nouniversalityü Inclusivevs.exclusive

distinction does not accountforvariation

Need foranempirical analysis

Need togobeyond thelogicaldistinctions

Parameters ofanalysis

1. PRESENCE vs.ABSENCE ofovertmarkersspecificallyencodingtherelationofalternative(syndesis vs.asyndesis):isthereadisjunctiveconnective?

ü Forcross-linguistic variation:

2. SEMANTIC DOMAIN oftheattestedmarkers:maytheconnectivebeusedinallthecontextswherewewouldhaveEnglishor?Morefunctions?Lessfunctions?Whatfunctions(basedongrammars…)?

ü Fordiachronic variation:

LEXICAL SOURCE forthedisjunctive construction– not enough informationingrammars onthecontexts oflanguage change


Parameters ofanalysis

READING OF OR,thatis,anydistincttypeofexplicature recurrentlydevelopedoutofanutterancecontainingor: whatisthespeaker’sintendedmessageinusingOR?

Ø IdentificationofanORreadingthroughü Explicature testü Non-explicature tests(two-tiertest,indirectadditiontest)(ArielandMauri 2016)

ü Fordiscourse variation,based onEnglish:


Plan

11. Cross-linguistic picture

1.1 Languages without OR1.2 Languages with different ORs

1. Diachronic sources out of which ORs develop

2. Attested readings of English OR in discourse


Languages without OR

1


…Howcananalternativebetweenstates ofaffairs,properties orentities

beconveyedWITHOUT

adisjunctive connective?


134)Wari’,Chapacura-Wanam (EverettandKern1997:162)

a. mo tapa’ta’ hwam ca, mo taCOND realis.future kill1sg:realis.future fish 3sg.M COND realis.futurepa’ta’ carawa cakill1sg:realis.futureanimal3sg.M‘Hewillfish orhewillhunt.’(lit.‘ifhe(says)“Iwillkillfish”,ifhe(says)“Iwillkillanimals”.’)

b.'am ’e’ ca’am mi’ pin caperhaps live 3sg.M perhaps give complete3sg.M‘Eitherhewillliveorhewilldie.’(lit.‘perhaps hewilllive,perhapshewilldie’)



135)Wari’,Chapacura-Wanam (EverettandKern1997:162)

a. mo tapa’ta’ hwam ca, mo taCOND realis.future kill1sg:realis.future fish 3sg.M COND realis.futurepa’ta’ carawa cakill1sg:realis.futureanimal3sg.M‘Hewillfish orhewillhunt.’(lit.‘ifhe(says)“Iwillkillfish”,ifhe(says)“Iwillkillanimals”.’)

b.'am ’e’ ca’am mi’ pin caperhaps live 3sg.M perhaps give complete3sg.M‘Eitherhewillliveorhewilldie.’(lit.‘perhaps hewilllive,perhapshewilldie’)

6)Hup(Vaupés Japurá,Epps2005:683)

wĭhcím’-íy=cud ʔûhníy, yaʔambǒʔg’əç-´əy=cud ʔûhníyhawkclaw-DYNM=INFR maybe dog bite-DYNM=INFRmaybe‘Eitherthehawkclawed(it),orthedogbit(it),apparently.’



17)Aranda (Australian,Pama-Nyungan;Wilkins1989:385-86)

‘Theparticle(a)peke 'maybe,might; if;or'hasawiderangeofrelatedused.Commontoallitsusesisthesensethatthespeakerissayingthatsomeproposition ispossiblythecase.Itthereforecommonly translatesas'might'or'maybe'[…]peke 'maybe'canalsobeusedtosignaldisjunction betweenco-ordinatedelements.’

Kere nyente peke-rle kwele re atwe-ke peke are-ke pekeanimalone maybe-FOC QUOT 3sgAkill-pc maybe,see-pc maybekwele; arrangkwe.QUOT nothing‘Perhapstherewassupposedly oneanimalthathekilledorsaw;no,nothing atall.



18)Galo(Post2008:312)

Disjunctivecoordination […]isbest-attestedinuncertain and/orinterrogativemoods.ThetwoNPsjakàa=go ‘black=IND’‘blackone’andjapúu=go ‘white=IND’‘whiteone’areeachmarkedbyConjecturalparticlebəree.

aəəjakâagòbərèjapúugóbərè?aəə[jakàa=go]NP bəree [japúu=go]NP bəreeHDST.SLEVblack=IND CJEC white=IND CJEC‘Overthere,(isit)ablackoneorawhiteone(Ican’tmakeitout)?’ (MN,22:155)


Theirreality ofdisjunction

11Absenceofa

disjunctivemarkerIMPLIES Presenceof

someirrealismarker



11Absenceofa

disjunctivemarkerIMPLIES Presenceof

someirrealismarker

ü A proposition is said to be REALIS when it asserts that a SoA is an ‘actualized andcertain fact of reality’ (Elliot 2000: 66-67).

ü A proposition is said to be IRREALIS when ‘it implies that a SoA belongs to therealm of the imagined or hypothetical, and as such it constitutes a potential orpossible event but it is not an observable fact of reality’ (Elliot 2000: 66-67).

Irrealis propositions belong to the domains of imagination, possibility, wish,interrogation, necessity, obligation and so on, in which a given SoA is presented as nothaving taken place, or where the speaker is not sure about its occurrence



19)a) Perhapsthehawkclawedit,maybe thedogbitit(apparently).

(irrealis coded,alternativeinferred)

b) Thehawkclaweditorthedogbitit(apparently).(alternativecoded,irrealis implied)

c) Perhaps thehawkclaweditormaybethedogbitit(apparently).(alternativecoded,irrealis coded)

d) Thehawkclawedit,thedogbitit(apparently).(irrealis andalternativenotcoded)à possibleinterpretations:sequenceofactions,simultaneity,opposition,??alternative??

Ø Ifneitheradisjunctiveconnectivenorsomeirrealis markingoccurs(12d),itisdifficulttoinferanalternativereading!



1ü Intheabsenceofanorconnective,theirrealis,potentialstatusof

alternativesmustbeovertlysignalled

à Twoalternativesareconceptualizedasequivalent,mutuallyreplaceablepossibilities

àUntil a choice is made or the speaker comes to know which hypothesis isrealized, either alternative could be the non-occurring one and thereforeboth are conceptualized as irrealis.

ü We are in the realm of EPISTEMIC MODALITY à Zimmermann 2001,Geurts 2005


Languages withOR

1 …what happens inlanguages

WITHmorethan one overt disjunctive

connective ?


Different ORs, different aims

2There are languages showing different strategies depending onthe AIM of the speaker in establishing the alternative relation(see Mauri 2008b: 155-161)

Simple alternative:an alternative relation may be established in order to present two states of affairs,properties or entities as equivalent and replaceable possibilities, without the needfor any choice

Choice-aimed alternative:an alternative relation may be established in order to elicit a choice betweenequivalent and replaceable possibilities, typically in interrogative sentences


Different ORs,different aims

10)Marathi,Indo-Iranian,Indo-European (Pandharipande 1997:162–163)

a. madhū āītSyā śuśruṣesāṭhī suṭṭī gheīl kĩwā /*kīMadhu mother:GEN looking.after.for leavetake:FUT:3sg ALTNstilā hɔspiṭalmadhe ṭthewīl3sg.ACC hospital:in keep:FUT:3sg‘Madhu willleavetotakecareofhismotherorkeepherinthehospital.’SIMPLEALTERNATIVE

b.tobādzārāt gelā kī/*kĩwā gharī gelā?3sgmarket.LOC go:PST:3sg.MALTNc home:LOC go:PST:3sg.M‘Didhegotothemarketordidhegohome?’CHOICE-AIMEDALTERNATIVE



111)Polish(Agnieszka Latos,p.c.)

a.Zazwyczaj piszę lub czytam aż do późnausuallywrite.PRS.1sgALTNs read.PRS.1sguntil tolate‘UsuallyIwriteorIreaduntillate.’SIMPLEALTERNATIVE

b. Idziemy jutro doszkoły czy zostajemy w domu?go.PRS.1pltomorrowtoschool ALTNc stay.PRS.1plat home‘Dowegotoschool tomorrowordowestayathome?’CHOICE-AIMEDALTERNATIVE



1Dik (1968:276)➤ similardistinctionintermsofmanner.He argues that the manner in which the alternative is presented determines abasic distinction that languages seem to encode: namely, the alternativerelation can be ‘either A or B’ or ‘either A or B, which one?’.

Haspelmath (2008:25-27)➤ standard and interrogative disjunction for the simple and the choice-aimed alternative, respectively (see discussion on terminology in Mauri2008a).



1Dik (1968:276)➤ similardistinctionintermsofmanner.He argues that the manner in which the alternative is presented determines abasic distinction that languages seem to encode: namely, the alternativerelation can be ‘either A or B’ or ‘either A or B, which one?’.

Haspelmath (2008:25-27)➤ standard and interrogative disjunction for the simple and the choice-aimed alternative, respectively (see discussion on terminology in Mauri2008a).


Speaker-oriented propertySpeaker’s illouctionaryAIM

Different ORs, different sets

1Certain languages show specific connectives depending on theEXHAUSTIVITY of the set3




Ø In non-exhaustive sets, the distinction between conjunction anddisjunction is inmany cases neutralized!

Ø Non-exhaustiveconnectivesleadtoanexemplificationfunction






Haspelmath (2007: 24): ‘representative conjunction’.According to him, in these cases “the conjuncts are taken as representativeexamples of a potentially larger class”.

Stassen (2000: 5): ‘enumerative coordinators’. The label ‘non-exhaustive’ iswell established in the literature on East Asian languages (Chino2001,Zhang 2008).






Haspelmath (2007: 24): ‘representative conjunction’.According to him, in these cases “the conjuncts are taken as representativeexamples of a potentially larger class”.

Stassen (2000: 5): ‘enumerative coordinators’. The label ‘non-exhaustive’ iswell established in the literature on East Asian languages (Chino2001,Zhang 2008).


Reference-orientedproperty


112)Japanese(Barotto 2016)

a.Exhaustive alternative(ka)

Kōho-wa Ohashi-ka Taniguchi to omotteiru.Candidate-TOP Ohashi-KA Taniguchi QT think:STA“(we)arethinking aboutOhashi orTaniguchiasacadidate.”

b.Non-exhaustivealternative(ya +nado) - EXEMPLIFICATION

Papurika-o pīman-ya asuparagasu nado ni kaeru to,paprika-ACC bellpepper-YA asparagus NADO DAT change if,samazamana arenji-ga kanō.varied arrangement-NOM possible“ifyoureplacepaprikawiththingslikeasparagusorbellpepper,avarietyofarrangementsispossible.”à *-ka



113)Japanese(Chino2001:41)

a.Non-exhaustiveconjunction(ya +nado) - EXEMPLIFICATION

Watashi noheya ni wa,[konpyūtā ya sutereo ga] oite arimasu.IDET roominTOP computerandstereoSBJ place-SUSP be-POL.NPST‘Inmyroomthereisacomputer,astereoAND OTHER SIMILAR THINGS.’à *-to

b.Non-exhaustivealternatives(-tari)- EXEMPLIFICATION

Nichiyōbi wa taitei tomodachi to tenisu [oshi-tari eiga omi ni it-tari]SundayTOP usuallyfriend withtennisOBJ do-tari filmOBJ seetogo-tarishimasudo.POL.NPST‘OnSundaysIusuallyplaytenniswithmyfriendsorgotoseemovies,OR SOMETHINGSIMILAR.’ à *-ka



114)Italian(NUNCCorpus)

c'e' il vantaggio che ti puoi customizzare lathere.is DEF advantagethatCLIT can.2SG customize DEF

macchina come vuoi, inrelazione alle tue esigenzemachineas want.2SG in relationto.DEF your.PL need.PL

(grafica, piuttosto che sviluppo, piuttosto che giochi…)graphicspiuttosto che development piuttosto che games

‘[talkingaboutdesktop]thereistheadvantagethatyoumaycustomizethemachine(pc)asyouprefer,depending onyourneeds(graphics,development,videogamesORSIMILAR THINGS…’)NON-EXHAUSTIVESETOFALTERNATIVES


Synchronic analysis

1

Summing up…

I. There are languageswithout an overt OR

II. In languages lacking an overt OR, the use of markers encoding the irrealisstatus of the linked elements is obligatory

III. We findmany languages havingmore than one OR

IV. The distribution of different ORs is accounted for by non connectingproperties such as the speaker’s illouctionary aim and the (non-)exhaustivityof the set (not by truth-conditions…)


Diachronic analysis

1

Someoftheconnectives attested arevery recent,orontheirwaytogrammaticalization…


Diachronic analysis

1Asetofrecurrentsourcesfordisjunctivemarkerscanbeidentified:

(1) dubitative/hypothetical>alternative(2) negatedhypothesis>alternative(3) negation>alternative(4) polarquestion>choice-aimedalternative(5) freechoiceverbs>alternative(6) distalmeaning‘that/other’>alternative

Someoftheconnectives attested arevery recent,orontheirwaytogrammaticalization…


Dubitative/hypothetical >disjunctive

1

15) Kuuk Thaayorre (Pama-Nyungan,Gaby2006:323-324)Thedubitativeparticleisregularlyused toconveyalternativeandison thewaytoacquiring thefunctionalpropertiesofconnectives.

a)yup=okun ngay yan Waar.Paant-aksoon=DUB 1sg.NOM go:NPST place.name-DAT‘maybe later I’ll goouttoWaar-Paant’

b)ngul=okun kunk=okun pul watp=okun pulthen=DUB alive= DUB 3du.NOM dead= DUB 3du.NOM‘(Idon’t knowwhether)theytwoarealiveordead.’

c)nhunt wanthanngun nhiinan, Cairns=okun, Melbourne=okun2sg. NOM where.LOC sit:GO:NPST Cairns= DUB Melbourne= DUB‘whereareyougoing tolive,CairnsorMelbourne?’


Negatedhypothesis >disjunction

116)Hakha Lai,Tibeto-Burman (Peterson andVanBik 2004:339)

-làw-leè <negation -làw andtheancient conditional suffix -leè.

At present, Hakha Lai uses a new form for the conditional construction, and this quitecomplicated way of expressing an alternative relation is on the way togrammaticalization as a disjunctive connective.

làwthlawpaa falaám ˀa-kal-làw-leè haàkhaà-ˀaˀ ˀa-ˀùmfarmer Falam 3sg.SBJ-go-NEG-COND Hakha-LOC 3sg.SBJ-exist‘Thefarmer goes toFalam orhestays inHakha.’(lit.‘Thefarmer, if hedoesn’t gotoFalam,hestays inHakha’)


Negatedhypothesis >disjunction

117)Cavineña (Tacanan,Guillaume2004:114)

‘Disjunction inCavineña is normally realised bythewordjadyaamajuatsu ‘or’which comesfromthelexicalisation ofthesamesubjecttemporalclausejadya=ama ju-atsu ‘thus=NEGbe-SS’(lit.beingnotthus).Itmaybeshortened tojadyamajuatsu, jadyamaatsu orevenamaatsu.’

Tuekedya =pa ekanaS tere-ya kwejipa=eke jadyaamajuatsu e-tiki=ekethen =REP 3PL finish-IMPFV strong.wind=PERL or NPF-fire=PERL‘(When theworldwas new,our ancestors)would die(lit.finish) fromthestrongwinds orfromthefire.’


Negation >disjunction

118)Galo(Post2008:312-13,789)

‘máa‘DSJ’ishomophonous withtheCopulanegator/Negative interjectionmáa‘NEG’,andprobablyderivesfromthelatterhistorically’(2008:312).‘InthemainaNegativepolarityparticle,andbasicallyhomophonous withtheNegativepolaritypredicatesuffix -máa(§4659H12.2)andtheNegativeinterjectionmáa~máʔ‘no’, indisjunctive functionmáamarksapolar(closed)alternationbetweentwocoordinated interrogativeclauses(2008:789).Thetwofunctionsaresynchronicallydistinct(2008:312).

rəkênjâarədɨɨmá(…)rənêkjaarəd|ɨ.[rə-kèn-jàa-rə dɨɨ]=máa [rə-nèk-jàa-rə dɨɨ]live/exist-good/east-more-IRRWOND=DISJ live/exist-bad-more-IRRWOND‘Will(lifeinthefuture)bebetteror(…)willitbeworse?’


Negation >disjunction

1(19)Nakanai,(Austronesian, EasternMalayo-Polynesian,Oceanic,Johnston1980:239)

‘Thedisjunct coordinator is(ou)ka 'or'(literally'no').Itindicatestheoptionofanegativeconditionalpresuposition PossiblyX;NO,thenY.Initsconnectivefunction, itmostoftenappearsshortened toka andisdeveloping thefunctionalanddistributionalcharacterofaconjunction.’

a)Egite la ilali ouka.they NM food no'They had nofood.'

b)Eme masaga ale nabatu, ka (eme masaga) alenabauan?You.sg like that number.two or you.sg like that number.one‘Doyoulikethesecondorthefirstone?’

c)Egite vei-a ge va-ubibi le amutou, ka ouka?they say-3ps IRR REC-shoot ABL you.pl or no‘Didtheyintendtofightagainstyou,ornot?’


Polar question >disjunction

1(20)Polishtheinterrogativemarkerczy wasoriginally theinstrumentalformofCommonSlavic*ch’to ‘what’>Cz.Pol.czy,Bel.ci

a. Czy pan dużo podróżuje?Q you much travel‘Doyoutravelalot?’

b. Idziemy jutro doszkoły czy zostajemy w domu?go.PRS.1pltomorrow toschool ALTNc stay.PRS.1plat home‘Dowegotoschool tomorrowordowestayathome?’


Polar question >disjunction

121)Golin (Trans-NewGuinea,Chimbu,Evans2005:127,48)

Insingle-clausepolarquestionssuchas(c),asecondclauseisabsent,though probablyimplied.

a.Dibe kare-ne-ra-bin mo bisnis erene-ra- binmo gaanboatsee-eat-IRR-IPL DISJ business (TP) doeat-IRR-1PL DISJchildsule di-ra-n-g-w-aschool(TP) be-IRR-3-AS-3-DIST‘(We)arewastingourtimebuyingcarsormakingbusinessor(sending) ourkidstoschool…’

b. u-ra-n-mo u-k-ra-n?come-IRR-2-PQ come-NEG-IRR-2‘Areyougoing tocomeornot?’

c. i nibil pa-n-mo?2SG sickness be-2-PQ‘Doyouhaveadisease?’

choice-aimed alternative > polar question marker(Heine & Kuteva 2002: 226-227)


Other sources

1ü Freechoice verbsLat.vel ‘want’>‘simple or’,Fr.soit…soit ‘beit’>‘either …or’

ü Distal ‘that/other’Dan.Nor.Swe.eller ‘or’<Proto-Germanic*alja-,*aljis- ‘other’(FalkandTorp1910:187);I.E.*au- ‘other,that’>Lat.aut(*auti)‘or’,autem ‘but’>It.Sp.Cat.o,Fr.Port.ou;


Semantic domains ofthediachronic sources


1 Potentiality ORMaybe X,maybe Ydubitative,hypotheticals



1 Negation

X,noYXno,Ynegation

IfnotX,YX,ifnot,Ynegatedhypothesis

OR


Potentiality


Maybe X,maybe Ydubitative,hypotheticals

Negation,replaceability


1

Choice

X,noYXno,Ynegation

IfnotX,YX,ifnot,Ynegatedhypothesis

X?Y?Polar questions

ORPotentiality


Maybe X,maybe Ydubitative,hypotheticals


Nonconnecting propertiesofalternative

1


Informationonthespeaker’sillocutionary aims,knowledge,expectations,hypotheses

Informationontheelementsandthesetthey constitute

Choice

Potentiality Negation,replaceability


Inside,beside,beyond disjunction

Cross-linguistic evidence

Diachronic evidence

In order to understand thelinguistic behavior of disjunction,we have to look beside and gobeyond disjunction itself

ü We have to take into account the mutual relations between alternativity andother semantic dimensions having to do withØ the speaker establishing the alternativity andØ the set of alternatives

1

DisjunctionStrategies employedwhen anORconnective is lacking

Potentiality



1

Strategies employedwhen anORconnective is lacking

Semantic distinctions encodedbyORconnectives

Disjunction

Choice

Exhaustivity

Potentiality



1

Strategies employedwhen anORconnective is lacking

Diachronic sourcesforORconnectives

Semantic distinctions encodedbyORconnectives

Choice


Choice

Exhaustivity

DisjunctionPotentiality



1

Choice

Exhaustivity

Disjunction

Functionaldimensionstowhichspeakersaresensitiveinverbalizingthenotion ofalternative


Choice


Potentiality


Theuseofdisjunctionindiscourse


§ Dothefunctional domains identified,andingeneralspeaker-orientedandreference-oriented properties,playarole inexplaining theuseofdisjunction indiscourse?

§ Whydospeakerschoose tousetheconnectiveORindiscourse?

Theuseofdisjunctionindiscourse

ü Corpus-based evidence fromEnglish

Ø discourse-relevantreadings ofEnglishor (ArielandMauri2016)

Ø SantaBarbaraCorpusofSpoken americanEnglish(SBC)(DuBoisetal.,2000-2005).


§ Dothefunctional domains identified,andingeneralspeaker-orientedandreference-oriented properties,playarole inexplaining theuseofdisjunction indiscourse?

§ Whydospeakerschoose tousetheconnectiveORindiscourse?

Six main readings ofOR

READING MEANING COMMITTED ALTERNATIVES

RaisedOptions PossiblyX,possiblyY 0

Higher-Level Higher-levelCategoryZ 0Category (comprisingmemberssuchasXandY)

Conjunctive Both/anyofXandY 2

Narrowed OneofXandY 1

Choice UnresolvedchoicebetweenXandY 1

Exhaustive OnlyXandY(otheroptionsruledout) 1/2


ArielandMauri 2016:eachreadingischaracterizedintermsoftheexplicature itexpressesandintermsofthenumberofalternativesthespeakercommitsto

Raised options OR‘possibly X,possibly Y’


22)He'sliketwentyfiveor twentysix,maybe twentysevenbutmarriedtothisladywhocouldbehismother.(LSAC)

Raised options OR‘possibly X,possibly Y’


22)He'sliketwentyfiveor twentysix,maybe twentysevenbutmarriedtothisladywhocouldbehismother.(LSAC)

ü Speakerundertakesnocommitment tothesetofalternatives

ü Speaker’s epistemic attitude:ignorance

ü Speaker’s aim:making hypotheses

ü Nonexhaustive setofalternatives

Higher-level categoryOR‘Category abstracted fromXandY’


23)ROY: savingthewhale,or savinguh...the..polarbea[r,

PETE:[Right...Pandas],

ROY: ormakingsurethere'senough]grizzlybears,that'sfine.(SBC:003)

Higher-level category[savingendangered animals]

Higher-level categoryOR‘Category abstracted fromXandY’


23)ROY: savingthewhale,or savinguh...the..polarbea[r,

PETE:[Right...Pandas],

ROY: ormakingsurethere'senough]grizzlybears,that'sfine.(SBC:003)

Higher-level category[savingendangered animals]

ü Speakerundertakesnocommitment tothesetofalternatives

ü Speaker’s aim:representingahigher-level category,not thespecificalternatives

ü Non-exhaustive setofalternatives

Separativeconjunction OR‘Both XandY’


24)JIM: Butformathematicsor forscience,((1LINEOMITTED))it'sanopportunityforthem((3LINESOMITTED))togetcloserto,(H)tothechaos,(SBC:017)

Separativeconjunction OR‘Both XandY’


24)JIM: Butformathematicsor forscience,((1LINEOMITTED))it'sanopportunityforthem((3LINESOMITTED))togetcloserto,(H)tothechaos,(SBC:017)

ü Speakercommits toboth alternatives being thecase

ü Speaker’s aim:torepresent asetofoccurring alternatives

ü Alternativesoccur independently ofeach other

ü Exhaustive setofalternatives

FreealternativeOR‘Anyone ofXandY’


25)ALICE:Youknowifyou...putasituationlikethatto~Timor ~Mandy,((4LINESOMITTED))...They...hemandhawaround,(SBC:007).

FreealternativeOR‘Anyone ofXandY’


25)ALICE:Youknowifyou...putasituationlikethatto~Timor ~Mandy,((4LINESOMITTED))...They...hemandhawaround,(SBC:007).

ü Speakercommits tothepossibility ofeach ofthealternatives toberealized

ü Speaker’s aim:torepresent asetofequivalent possibilities

ü Speakerexpectsonlyonealternativetoactuallyberealized,but sheis impartial as which one


NarrowedOR‘One ofXandY’


26)WhenpeoplecometoSAC,Janor anotherPAwillbetheretoexplainthesystem (LSAC).

NarrowedOR‘One ofXandY’


26)WhenpeoplecometoSAC,Janor anotherPAwillbetheretoexplainthesystem (LSAC).

ü Speakercommits toone ofthealternatives being thecase

ü Speaker’s aim is tonarrowdownthesetofalternatives


Choice OR‘Unresolved choice between XandY’


27)ROY:ShallIdosomethingcivilized,((1LINEOMITTED))likeclearthetable,((1LINEOMITTED))or arewejustgonna barbarianitout.(SBC:003)


Choice OR‘Unresolved choice between XandY’

27)ROY:ShallIdosomethingcivilized,((1LINEOMITTED))likeclearthetable,((1LINEOMITTED))or arewejustgonna barbarianitout.(SBC:003)

ü Speakercommits toone ofthealternatives being thecase

ü Speaker’s aim is toelicit achoice,orassert theneed forachoice(interrogativecontexts)


Exhaustive OR‘Only XandY’


28)a. JULIE:..It'sait'ssportforeitherthebraveor thestupid.(SBC:056).

b.FRANK:Butapparentlyitwaseitheraheartattackorananeurysm(SBC:019)


Exhaustive OR‘Only XandY’

28)a. JULIE:..It'sait'ssportforeitherthebraveor thestupid.(SBC:056).

b.FRANK:Butapparentlyitwaseitheraheartattackorananeurysm(SBC:019)

ü Speakercommits tothesetofalternatives

ü Speaker’s aim is toexclude anyother options


Nonconnecting propertiesandthereadings ofOR


Dononconnectingproperties playarole inexplaining theuseofdisjunction indiscourse?



Dononconnectingproperties playarole inexplaining theuseofdisjunction indiscourse?

Ø The readings we discussed can be fuitfully described in terms ofexplicated information concerning:

ü the speakerü the set of linked elements

YES



Speaker’scommitmentto: ü theexistenceoftheelementsü theexistenceofthesetitselfü thedelimitationofthesetSpeaker’sexpectationsconcerning:




Speaker’sillocutionaryaim:ü elicitingachoiceü raisinghypothesesü representingaset




Referenceto: ü exhaustivevs.nonexhaustivesetü elementsvs.higher-levelcategoryü Independentoccurrenceofthe

elements





Referenceto:


ü exhaustivevs.nonexhaustivesetü elementsvs.higher-levelcategoryü Independentoccurrenceofthe

elements

By integrating different methods and data, we showed that NONCONNECTING PROPERTIES play a central role in explaining synchronic anddiachronicpatternsof variation for disjunctive connectives


Conclusions


ü In particular, the speaker’s illocutionary aim (es. Choice), the speaker’sepistemic status (in terms of knowledge, commitment and expectations)and the properties of the set emerge as functional dimensions that arerelevant both for the development of disjunctive connectives and for theiruse in discourse


Conclusions



Ø Modal and referential functions of disjunctive connectives!


Conclusions



Ø Modal and referential functions of disjunctive connectives!

NEXT STEP: Psycholinguistic evidenceDothese semanticproperties playarole intheprocessingandacquisitionofdisjunction?


Conclusions

Thank you!


AbbreviationsA=agent;ABL=ablative;ACC=accusative;ALTNc=choice-aimed

disjunction;ALTNs=simplealternative;AS=assertion;CJEC=conjectural;COND=condictional;DAT=dative;DEM=demonstrative;DISJ=disjunctivemarker;du=dual;DIST=distal;DUB=dubitative;DYNM=dynamic;FOC=focus;

FUT=future;GEN=genitive;HDST=hyperdistal;IND=individuator;INT=interrogative;INFR=inferential

evidential;IRR=irrealis;LOC=locative;M=masculine;NEG=negative;NM=nounmarker;NOM=nominative;NPF=(dummy) nounprefix;NPST=nonpast;pc=pastcompletive;PERL=perlative;

PERMISS=permissive;PL=plural;POL=polite;PRS=present;PST=past;TOP=topic;Q=question;QUOT=quotative;REC=reciprocal;REP=reportative;SBJ=subject;SG=singular;SLEV=sametopographiclevel;WOND=wonder;


ReferencesArielandMauri.2016.Why useOr?Submitted.Asher,RonaldE.andT.C.Kumari (1997).Malayalam.London-NewYork:RoutledgeBarotto,Alessandra.Categorizationandexemplification:thecaseofJapanese.PhDThesis,Bergamo.Chierchia,G.,Crain,S.,Guasti,M.T.,Gualmini.A.,&Meroni,L.(2001).Theacquisitionofdisjunction:Evidenceforagrammaticalviewofscalarimplicatures.Proceedingsofthe25thBoston UniversityConferenceonLanguageDevelopment(pp.157-168).Somerville,MA:Cascadilla Press.Crain,Stephen(2008).Theinterpretationofdisjunctioninuniversalgrammar.LanguageandSpeech51/1-2:151-169.Dik,Simon(1997).TheTheory ofFunctional Grammar.PartI:thestructure oftheclause.ed.Kees Hengeveld.Berlin andNewYork:Mouton deGruyter.(2ndrevised version).Elliot,JenniferR.(2000).Realis andirrealis:formsandconceptsofthegrammaticalisationofreality.LinguisticTypology 4-1,55–90.Epps,Patience.(2005).AGrammarofHup.PhDThesis.UniversityofVirginia.


ReferencesEvans,Nicholasetal.(2005).MaterialsonGolin:grammar,textsanddictionary.DepartmentofLinguisticsandAppliedLinguistics.TheUniversityofMelbourne.Everett,DanandBarbaraKern (1997).Warì.Descriptive Grammars.London:Routledge.Gaby,Rose.(2006).AGrammarofKuuk Thaayorre.PhDThesis,Univeristy ofMelbourne.Geurts,Bart.(2004).Entertainingalternatives:Disjunctionsasmodals:Ms.UniversityofNijmegen.http://www.kun.nl/phil/tfl/bart/.Grice,H.P.,1975,Logicandconversation.InSyntaxandsemantics 3:Speechacts,P.Cole(Ed).AcademicPress,NewYork,pp.41-58.Guilaume,Antoine.(2004).AGrammarofCavineña,anAmazonianLanguageofNorthernBolivia.PhDThesis.RCLT,LaTrobeUniversity.Haspelmath,Martin(2008).Coordination.InTimothyShopen,(ed.),Languagetypology andlinguistic description,pp.1-51.Cambridge:CUP,2ndedition.


ReferencesHeine,B.&Kuteva,T.(2002).WorldLexiconofGrammaticalization.Cambridge:CUP.Horn,L.(1996).Presuppositionandimplicature.InS.Lappin (Ed.),Handbookofcontemporarysemantictheory,pp.299-319.Oxford:Backwell.Johnston,RaymondLeslie.(1980)Nakanai ofNewBritain:ThegrammarofanOceaniclanguage. PacificLinguistics:SeriesB-70.Kibrik,AndrejA.(2004).CoordinationinUpperKuskokwimAthabaskan.InMartinHaspelmath,(ed.),Coordinatingconstrunctions,pp.537–554.Amsterdam;Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.Kinball,GeoffreyDavid.1985.AdescriptivegrammarofKoasati.TulaneUniversity.Mauri,Caterina (2008a).Theirreality ofalternatives:towardsatypologyofdisjunction.StudiesinLanguage 32/1:22- 55.Mauri,Caterina (2008b)Coordination RelationsintheLanguages ofEuropeandBeyond.Berlin,NewYork:MoutondeGruyter.


ReferencesOhori,Toshio (2004).Coordination inMentalese.InMartinHaspelmath,(ed.),Coordinating constructions,pp.41–66.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.Pandharipande,Rajeshwari.(1997).Marathi.London,NewYork:Routledge.Payne,John.(1985).Complexphrasesandcomplexsentences.InTimothyShopen (ed),ComplexConstructions,vol.IIofLanguageTypologyandsyntacticdescription,pp.3-41.Cambridge:CUP.Peterson,DavidA.andKennethVanBik.(2004).Coordination inHakha Lai(Tibeto-Burman).InMartinHaspelmath,(ed.),Coordinating construnctions,pp.333–354.Amsterdam;Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins.Post,Mark.(2008).AGrammarofGalo.PhDThesis.RCLT,LaTrobeUniversity.Press,MargaretLauritsen.(1975).AGrammarofChemehuevi.Phd Thesis.UniversityofClaifornia,LA.Saeed,JohnIbrahim(1993)Somalireference grammar (Secondrevisededition).Kensington:DunwoodyPress.


ReferencesSiemund,Interrogativeconstructions.In:M.Haspelmath andE.Koenigetal.,Editors,LanguageTypologyandLanguageUniversals—AnInternationalHandbook vol.2,WalterdeGruyter,Berlin(2001),pp.1010–1028.Sohn,Ho-Min (1994).Korean.London,NewYork:Routledge.Wilkins,DavidP.(1989).Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda):StudiesintheStructureandSemanticsofGrammar. PhDThesis.AustralianNationalUniversity.Zimmermann,ThomasE.(2001).Freechoicedisjunctionandepistemicpossibility.NaturalLanguageSemantics8,255–290.


connectives beyond · pdf file · 2016-06-28conditional values aims and methods ......

Documents