definiteness-marking in turoyoeecoppock.info/bremen2019.pdf · introduction turoyo materials...
TRANSCRIPT
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Distinctions
• Schwarz (2009):strong [familiarity] vs. weak [uniqueness]
• Coppock & Beaver (2015):weak [existence+uniqueness] vs. super-weak [uniqueness only]
3/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Anti-uniqueness effects
Uniqueness presupposed:
(1) She is the princess. [1](2) She is not the princess. [0-1](3) Is she the princess? [0-1]
But inserting an exclusive can negate that effect:
(4) She is the only princess. [1](5) She is not the only princess. [>1](6) Is she the only princess? [≥ 1]
4/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Key point
What anti-uniqueness effects show is that the definite article does notpresuppose existence.
5/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Anti-uniqueness effects: Lack of existence
She is not the princess. She is not the only princess.→ uniqueness of ‘princess’ /→ uniqueness of ‘princess’
→ uniqueness of ‘only princess’/→ existence of ‘only princess’
6/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Anti-uniqueness effects: Lack of existence
She is not the princess. She is not the only princess.→ uniqueness of ‘princess’
/→ uniqueness of ‘princess’
→ uniqueness of ‘only princess’
/→ existence of ‘only princess’
6/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Anti-uniqueness effects: Lack of existence
She is not the princess. She is not the only princess.→ uniqueness of ‘princess’
/→ uniqueness of ‘princess’
→ uniqueness of ‘only princess’/→ existence of ‘only princess’
6/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Not just an idiosyncrasy of only
(7) Lack of supply is not the sole cause of Britain’s housing crisis.(8) Search engine optimization is not the single thing to think about
with regards to search engine ranking.(9) It is worthwhile to visit Kuala Lumpur to see the future of modern
Asia, but it is not the one reason to visit.(10) Dean Hall doesn’t have the exclusive right to open-world
multiplayer zombie apocalypse simulators, you know.
7/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Predicative definite description
et
⟨et, et⟩λP . λx . [∂(∣P ∣ ≤ 1) ∧ P(x)]
the
etprincess
princess
8/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Predicative definite description
et
⟨et, et⟩λP . λx . [∂(∣P ∣ ≤ 1) ∧ P(x)]
the
etprincess
princess
8/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Predicative definite description
et
⟨et, et⟩λP . λx . [∂(∣P ∣ ≤ 1) ∧ P(x)]
the
etprincess
princess
8/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Predicative definite description
et[λP . λx . [∂(∣P ∣ ≤ 1) ∧ P(x)]](princess)
⟨et, et⟩λP . λx . [∂(∣P ∣ ≤ 1) ∧ P(x)]
the
etprincess
princess
8/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Predicative definite description
et[λP . λx . [∂(∣P ∣ ≤ 1) ∧ P(x)]](princess)
⟨et, et⟩λP . λx . [∂(∣P ∣ ≤ 1) ∧ P(x)]
the
etprincess
princess
8/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Predicative definite description
etλx . [∂(∣princess∣ ≤ 1) ∧ princess(x)]
⟨et, et⟩λP . λx . [∂(∣P ∣ ≤ 1) ∧ P(x)]
the
etprincess
princess
8/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Good result!
(11) Scott is not the only author of ‘Waverley’
↝
≡ ¬[∂(∣only(author(w))∣ ≤ 1) ∧ only(author(w))(s)]≡ [∂(author(w)(s)) ∧ ¬∀y[s ≠ y → ¬author(w)(y)]]
9/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Good result!
(11) Scott is not the only author of ‘Waverley’
↝≡ ¬[∂(∣only(author(w))∣ ≤ 1) ∧ only(author(w))(s)]
≡ [∂(author(w)(s)) ∧ ¬∀y[s ≠ y → ¬author(w)(y)]]
9/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Good result!
(11) Scott is not the only author of ‘Waverley’
↝≡ ¬[∂(∣only(author(w))∣ ≤ 1) ∧ only(author(w))(s)]≡ [∂(author(w)(s)) ∧ ¬∀y[s ≠ y → ¬author(w)(y)]]
9/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Anti-uniqueness effects with argumental definites
(12) Anna didn’t cheer for the only goal.⇒ only one goal(13) Anna didn’t score the only goal.⇒ one or multiple goals
10/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Proposal
Two meaning shifts:• iota ∶ P ↦ ιx[P(x)]
yields a determinate interpretation• ex ∶ P ↦ λQ∃x[P(x) ∧Q(x)]
yields an indeterminate interpretation
11/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
System for English
⟨e, t⟩
e ⟨⟨e, t⟩, t⟩
exiota
12/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Typology
definites
familiarity
strong
uniqueness
weak super-weak
13/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Two questions one can ask
Regarding a given marker:• Does it encode familiarity or uniqueness?• If uniqueness, existence too?
14/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Turoyo
3 Materials
4 Results
5 Discussion
15/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Turoyo: the basicsOrigin
• SE Turkey, Midyat region• Speakers now in Diaspora (New Zealand, Sweden, Germany; our
speakers: Massachusetts and Indiana)• Village and language identity remain distinct
16/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Family tree and status
• A Central Neo-Aramaic language, part of the Semitic family• Strong influences from Classical Syriac• Threatened (ethnologue.com)
17/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Scripts and phonological inventory
Scripts• Three scripts used since 1880s: Serto, Madnhaya, and Estrangelo
• Our consultants were asked to use Estrangelo• Letters are consonants, diacritics used to denote vowels (similar to
Hebrew and Arabic scripts)Sound System
• Iconic root-and-pattern morphology• Phonology is different than Hebrew, but the scripts match the
Hebrew script 1:1• Using this and Miriam’s Hebrew background we were able to
’transliterate’ the Turoyo data and make educated attempts atpronunciations and identifying cognates and structures
18/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
The details
Square-off: Definite vs. Copula vs. Pronoun vs. Demonstrative• Previous research told us that the definite article appears as Pi (fem)
or Pu (masc), but more work was required to pick these forms out ofour preliminary written data
• With our Hebrew transliteration system and background we isolatedthe following suspect forms: A-H-I, A-H-U, H-I-A, H-U-A
• The latter two appeared in a variety of locations• After speaking with our consultant and learning about the underlining
process in Estrangelo orthography that silences segments, we foundthe following:
19/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Distinguishing forms
Category Spelling Pronunciation AllomorphsDEF A-H-I Pi FEMDEF A-H-U Pu MASCCOP H-I-A jo PRESCOP H-U-A wa PASTPRO H-I-A hiy@ FEMPRO H-U-A huw@ MASCDEM H-I-A jo FEMDEM H-U-A wo MASC
Now we can begin studying the behavior of the definite article.
20/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Turoyo
3 Materials
4 Results
5 Discussion
21/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Translation survey
We carried out a translation survey, with:• sentences drawn from Schwarz’s (2009) dissertation, adapted to the
Turoyo setting• additional sentences testing for the possibility of indeterminate uses
22/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Schwarz: Weak
(14) Derthe
Ampfangreception
wurdewas
vom / von dem*by-theweak / by thestrong
Burgermeistermayor
eroffnet.opened‘The reception was opened by the mayor.’
23/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Schwarz: Strong
(15) HansHans
hathas
einena
Schriftstellerwriter
undand
einena
Politikerpolitician
interviewt.interviewed
ErHe
hathas
vom* / von demfrom-theweak / from thestrong
Politikerpolitician
keineno
interessanteninteresting
Antwortenanswers
bekommen.gotten
‘Hans interviewed a writer and a politician. He didn’t get anyinteresting answers from the politician.’
24/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Distributional environments
Environment Ger.Str Ger.Wk Eng. Ex.Immediate situation × ✓ ✓ dogLarger situation × ✓ ✓ priestGlobal situation × ✓ ✓ moonPart-whole bridging × ✓ ✓ church-towerProduct-producer ✓ × ✓ book-authorAnaphoric ✓ % ✓ politicianDemonstrative ✓ × × that boyProper nouns × ✓ % SargonKind reference × ✓ ✓ whalesSuperlatives ? ? ✓ highest mountainExclusives ? ? ✓ only author
25/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Aside
• The strong article is used in Partee ‘marble’ cases, like:I dropped 10 marbles and found nine.??It/The missing marble was under the couch.
• If ‘weak familiarity’ in Roberts’s (2006) sense is all that is required forthe use of a strong definite, as this suggests, then when are strongdefinites really predicted not to be usable?
26/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Turoyo
3 Materials
4 Results
5 Discussion
27/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Anaphoric use (Strong-only env.)
(16) Pudef
SargonSargon
semlemade
mkabalyothainterview
amwith
kathowowriter
waand
folitikaya.politician.
laneg
athilegot
fonyaanswers
tavegood
m-ufrom-def
folitikayapolitician
‘Sargon interviewed a writer and a politician. He didn’t get anygood answers from the politician.’
(17) zvnbought
l-ifor-me
furtkala.orange.
Pidef
furtukalaorange
galbovery
basimtotasty
wacop.pst
‘I bought an orange today. The orange was very tasty.’
28/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Global situation use (Weak-only env.)
(18) ArmstrongArmstrong
wacop.pst
Pudef
barnashoperson
qadmoyofirst
d-fa‘erthat-fly
l-uto-def
sahromoon‘Armstrong was the first person to fly to the moon.’
29/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Anti-uniqueness use (Super-weak env.)
(19) MousheMoushe
let-joneg-cop.pres
Pudef
kathowoauthor
yixidoyoonly
d-uof-def
kthowa-wobook-dem.fem‘Moushe is not the only author of that book.’
30/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Superlative construction
(20) emomom
sjamlemakes
kukocookies
b-uin-def
Polmoworld
kul-oall-it
‘Mom makes the best cookies in the whole world.’
31/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Summary of results
Definites Str Wk Eng. Tur. Ex.Immediate situation × ✓ ✓ ✓ dog has a toothacheLarger situation × ✓ ✓ ✓ priestGlobal situation × ✓ ✓ ✓ moonPart-whole bridging × ✓ ✓ ✓ church-towerProduct-producer ✓ × ✓ ✓ book-authorAnaphoric ✓ % ✓ ✓ politicianDemonstrative ✓ × × ✓+ that boyProper nouns × ✓ % ✓ SargonKind reference × ✓ ✓ ✓ whalesSuperlatives ? ? ✓ × highest mountainExclusives ? ? ✓ ✓ only author
32/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Turoyo
3 Materials
4 Results
5 Discussion
33/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Summary
• Turoyo’s definiteness-marker patterns just like English the• except when it doesn’t:
• superlatives(English yes, Turoyo no)
• double-definiteness, proper names(English no, Turoyo yes)
34/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Superlatives vs. other adjectives
(21) SargonSargon
hubgave
l-eto-him
wardorose
l-uto-def
axunobrother
rabobig
‘Sargon gave a rose to the older brother.’(22) emo
momsjamlemakes
kukocookies
b-uin-def
Polmoworld
kul-oall-it
‘Mom makes the best cookies in the whole world.’
Speculation: Superlative occupies determiner slot.
35/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Superlatives vs. other adjectives
(21) SargonSargon
hubgave
l-eto-him
wardorose
l-uto-def
axunobrother
rabobig
‘Sargon gave a rose to the older brother.’(22) emo
momsjamlemakes
kukocookies
b-uin-def
Polmoworld
kul-oall-it
‘Mom makes the best cookies in the whole world.’
Speculation: Superlative occupies determiner slot.
35/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Double definiteness
(23) AshurAshur
kroxamlove
Pidef
radaytocar
semaqtored
‘Ashur loves the red car.’(24) kroxam-no
love-IPidef
radayta-jocar-dem.fem
Pidef
semaqtored
‘I love that red car.’
We found that this is not conditioned by contrast, contra Doron & Khan(2016); (24) OK in situations with only one car.
36/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Non-contrastive double definiteness
(25) hathethis
jocop.pres
Pidef
wardorose
d-Ashurof-Ashur
Pidef
shafirtobeautiful
‘This is Ashur’s beautiful rosebush’There is no other rosebush in this scenario to compare Ashur’s to.
37/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Possessive construction
(26) AtourArour
Pidef
xut-aydisister-poss
Pidef
habibtofavorite
jocop.pres
‘Atour is my favorite sister.’(27) kroxam-no
love-IPudef
kalb-aydidog-poss
Pudef
shafirobeautiful
‘I love my beautiful dog.’
38/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Our claim
• Turoyo’s definiteness-markers are semantically identical to those ofEnglish: they encode uniqueness.
• Both have familiarity uses because familiarity is a special case ofuniqueness (Beaver & Coppock, 2015).
• Differences in their distribution are due to purely syntactic factors.
39/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Our claim
• Turoyo’s definiteness-markers are semantically identical to those ofEnglish: they encode uniqueness.
• Both have familiarity uses because familiarity is a special case ofuniqueness (Beaver & Coppock, 2015).
• Differences in their distribution are due to purely syntactic factors.
39/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Our claim
• Turoyo’s definiteness-markers are semantically identical to those ofEnglish: they encode uniqueness.
• Both have familiarity uses because familiarity is a special case ofuniqueness (Beaver & Coppock, 2015).
• Differences in their distribution are due to purely syntactic factors.
39/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Typological questions
• How many of the languages that have been categorized as ‘weak’ arereally ‘super-weak’?
• Do uniqueness definites always have familiarity uses except whenblocked by a more specific form?
• Predicted gap: familiarity definites with anti-uniqueness uses. What ifwe find such a language?
40/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Typological questions
• How many of the languages that have been categorized as ‘weak’ arereally ‘super-weak’?
• Do uniqueness definites always have familiarity uses except whenblocked by a more specific form?
• Predicted gap: familiarity definites with anti-uniqueness uses. What ifwe find such a language?
40/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Typological questions
• How many of the languages that have been categorized as ‘weak’ arereally ‘super-weak’?
• Do uniqueness definites always have familiarity uses except whenblocked by a more specific form?
• Predicted gap: familiarity definites with anti-uniqueness uses. What ifwe find such a language?
40/50
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
...
.
Introduction Turoyo Materials Results Discussion References
Beaver, David & Elizabeth Coppock. 2015. Novelty and familiarity for free. InProceedings of the 2015 Amsterdam Colloquium, 50–59. University ofAmsterdam.
Coppock, Elizabeth & David Beaver. 2015. Definiteness and determinacy.Linguistics and Philosophy 38(5). 377–435. doi:10.1007/s10988-015-9178-8.
Doron, Edit & Geoffrey Khan. 2016. The morphosyntax of definiteness agreementin Neo-Aramaic and Central Semitic. In Jenny Audring, Francesca Masini &Wendy Sandler (eds.), Quo vadis morphology? MMM10 On-line Proceedings,45–54.
Roberts, Craige. 2006. Only: presupposition and implicature. Manuscript, OhioState University.
Schwarz, Florian. 2009. Two types of definites in natural language: University ofMassachusetts at Amherst dissertation.
41/50