Epistemic indefinites in Daakaka

Kilu von PrinceHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin

Triple A III

1 / 23

Structure of the talk

1 Introduction

2 Possible solutionsSpecificityDomain widening/shiftingModal restriction

3 Preliminary conclusions

2 / 23

Swa vs. tuswa

Conditional clauses:

(1) a. kasubconj

vyantenperson

tuswatuswa

tedist

mecome

teconj

sakaneg.mod

ko=n2s=nec

sóróspeak

myanewith‘if anyone comes, don’t talk to them’

b. kasubconj

vyantenperson

swaswa

tedist

mecome

teconj

sakaneg.mod

ko=n2s=nec

sóróspeak

myanewith‘if someone comes, don’t speak to him/her’ (I have someonespecific in mind)

3 / 23

Swa vs. tuswa: Negative assertions/ questions

(2) a. Wotopbreadfruit

swaswa

toreal;neg

pwer.stay

‘One breadfruit is missing.’b. Wotop

breadfruittuswatuswa

toreal;neg

pwer./?stay

(i) ‘There is no breadfruit.’(ii) ‘Is there no breadfruit?’

4 / 23

Swa vs. tuswa Assertions/ Questions with past reference

(3) a. Wotopbreadfruit

swaswa

mwereal

pwer.stay

‘One breadfruit remains.’b. Wotop

breadfruittuswatuswa/

mwea.bit(npsup)

pwer?real stay

‘Is there a breadfruit (left)?’c. #Wotop

breadfruittuswatuswa/

mwea.bit(npsup)

pwer.real stay

intended: ‘there is one breadfruit left’

5 / 23

Possible solutions: Specificity

The Specificity HypothesisSwa signals familiarity with a referent on the side of the speaker, tuswasignals that the referent is not identifiable

6 / 23

The Specificity Hypothesis: Pro

(4) a. webungday

tuswatuswa/

yaapuswa

kabig.man

wemod.rel

kuelipot

mereturn come

‘one day, God will return’b. #?webung

dayswaswa

yaapubig.man

kamod.rel

wepot

kuelireturn

mecome

„on a certain day, God will return (namely next Tuesday)“

7 / 23

The Specificity Hypothesis: Contra

(5) a. Yanon

swaone

kacomp

tadist

aneeat

meesfood

swaswa

tedist

sangabad

yenin

tes,sea

tedisc

wapot

kuowilyeknow

kacomp

wapot

tiyefight

ngok2sg

„Sometimes, if [this kind of fish] has eaten something bad, itmay attack you“

b. Yenenow

en=tak,dem=dem.prox

kacomp

ko=t2sg=dist

esisee

kacomp

ócoconut

swaswa

tedist

murfall

mecome

tedisc

ra=m1pl.in=real

esisee

nacomp

satop

vyavenwoman

en=tedem=dem.prox

met-aneye.of-3sg.poss

satop

ngenge

„Nowadays, if you see a coconut fall down from a tree, we seethis woman’s eyes there.“

8 / 23

Possible solutions: Domain widening/shifting

Hypothesis: Domain widening and/or shiftingBoth swa and tuswa introduce existential quantifiers, but tuswa either liftsthe contextual restriction on the quantifier or shifts the method ofidentification from the contextually salient one to a different one.

• In the context of EIs in European languages, the processes of domainwidening (Alonso-Ovalle & Menéndez-Benito, 2010: e. g.) or domainshifting (Aloni & Port, 2006) are preferred methods to account for thedifference between simple indefinites and epistemic indefinites.

• This hypothesis would be able to deal with the examples seen so far.

9 / 23

Possible solutions: Domain widening/shifting

Hypothesis: Domain widening and/or shiftingBoth swa and tuswa introduce existential quantifiers, but tuswa either liftsthe contextual restriction on the quantifier or shifts the method ofidentification from the contextually salient one to a different one.

• In the context of EIs in European languages, the processes of domainwidening (Alonso-Ovalle & Menéndez-Benito, 2010: e. g.) or domainshifting (Aloni & Port, 2006) are preferred methods to account for thedifference between simple indefinites and epistemic indefinites.

• This hypothesis would be able to deal with the examples seen so far.

9 / 23

Domain widening/shifting: Contra

But it fails to account for the differences between swa/tuswa and theirEnglish or German counterparts:

1 Outside of generic temporal and conditional clauses, the use of swaindicates that the speaker has a specific referent in mind. The same isnot true for simple indefinites like a in Standard European languages.

2 Tuswa cannot generally occur in past realis contexts:

(2) #Wotopbreadfruit

tuswatuswa/

mwea.bit(npsup)

pwer.real stay

intended: ‘there is one breadfruit left’

(6) Some breadfruit(s) is/ are left.

(7) Irgendeine Brotfrucht ist noch da/ irgendwelche Brotfrüchte sindnoch da.

Note that this observation is compatible with the Specificity Hypothesisunder the assumption that familiarity with a concrete situation is a sufficientcondition for identifiability of the referent on the side of the speaker.

10 / 23

Domain widening/shifting: Contra

But it fails to account for the differences between swa/tuswa and theirEnglish or German counterparts:

1 Outside of generic temporal and conditional clauses, the use of swaindicates that the speaker has a specific referent in mind. The same isnot true for simple indefinites like a in Standard European languages.

2 Tuswa cannot generally occur in past realis contexts:

(2) #Wotopbreadfruit

tuswatuswa/

mwea.bit(npsup)

pwer.real stay

intended: ‘there is one breadfruit left’

(6) Some breadfruit(s) is/ are left.

(7) Irgendeine Brotfrucht ist noch da/ irgendwelche Brotfrüchte sindnoch da.

Note that this observation is compatible with the Specificity Hypothesisunder the assumption that familiarity with a concrete situation is a sufficientcondition for identifiability of the referent on the side of the speaker.

10 / 23

Possible solutions: modal restriction1

Hypothesis: Modal restrictionTuswa takes a property P and an individual x and asserts that the property Pholds for non-realis indices. Swa asserts P(x) for realis indices.

1The following is joint work with Manfred Krifka11 / 23

Defining realis vs. non-realis indices: Branching Times

ic

1

Realis: i ď i0Non-realis: i ę i0

12 / 23

Outlining the proposal

Definition: swa (one.sp)

vswaw = λiλRλP.Di1, i1 ď i0.DxP(x)(i1),R(x)(i)

Definition: tuswa (one.nsp)

vtuswaw = λiλRλP.Di1, i1 ę i0.DxP(x)(i1),R(x)(i)

13 / 23

Modal restriction: conditionals

(8) a. [kasubconj

vyantenperson

swa/swa/

tuswatuswa

tedist

me]come

teconj

sakaneg.mod

ko=n2s=nec

sóróspeak

myanewith

‘if someone specific/ anyone comes, don’t talk to them’

Definition: tV (distal)vdistw = λi.i ‰ i0

(9) (if) someone specific comes:λi.i ‰ i0, Di1.i1 ď i0, Dx.person(x)(i1), come(x)(i)

(10) (if) anyone comes:λi.i ę i0, Di1.i1 ‰ i0, Dx.person(x)(i1), come(x)(i)

14 / 23

Modal restriction: negation

Definition: to (neg.real)Wide scope:vneg.realw = λp.␣Di P RI, i ď i0, p(i)Narrow scope:vneg.realw = λPλx.␣Di P RI, i ď i0, P(x)(i)

15 / 23

Modal restriction: negation

(11) Wotopbreadfruit

swa/swa/

tuswatuswa

toreal;neg

pwer.stay

‘One breadfruit is missing/ there are no breafruits.’

(12) vbreadfruit swaw(vneg.real be.presentw)=Di, i ď i0.Dx.breadfruit(x)(i),␣Di1.i1 P RI, i1 ď i0,be.present(x)(i1)

(13) # vbreadfruit tuswaw(vneg.real be.presentw) =Di.i ę i0, Dx.breadfruit(x)(i),␣Di1.i1 P RI, i1 ď i0.be.present(x)(i1)

(14) vneg.realw(vbreadfruit tuswa be.presentw)=␣Di1 P RI, i1 ď i0.Di, i ę i0Dx.breadfruit(x)(i),be.present(x)(i1)

16 / 23

Modal restriction: Contra

(15) barvinyegrass

swaone

kaasr

wepot

lukgrow

tevesyeside.of

m-adacl2-1d.in

emhouse

„a plant will grow at the side of our house“

…this plant does not exist yet, contrary to the prediction from definition swa.

Note that, again, this example is compatible with the Specificity Hypothesis,since the speaker of the sentence has a specific individual plant in mind.

17 / 23

Modal restriction: Contra

(15) barvinyegrass

swaone

kaasr

wepot

lukgrow

tevesyeside.of

m-adacl2-1d.in

emhouse

„a plant will grow at the side of our house“

…this plant does not exist yet, contrary to the prediction from definition swa.Note that, again, this example is compatible with the Specificity Hypothesis,since the speaker of the sentence has a specific individual plant in mind.

17 / 23

Modal restriction, version 0.2

A weaker version of the modal-restriction hypothesis may be able to dealwith (15):Only tuswa may include a modal restriction to non-actual indices, swa maybe underspecified with respect to its modal domain.

But then we would still fail to account for the specificity difference in futurecontexts. Examples like the following are problematic for both versions:

(16) a. webungday

tuswatuswa/

yaapuswa

kabig.man

wemod.rel

kuelipot

mereturn come

‘one day, God will return’b. #?webung

dayswaswa

yaapubig.man

kamod.rel

wepot

kuelireturn

mecome

„on a certain day, God will return (namely next Tuesday)“

18 / 23

Modal restriction, version 0.2

A weaker version of the modal-restriction hypothesis may be able to dealwith (15):Only tuswa may include a modal restriction to non-actual indices, swa maybe underspecified with respect to its modal domain.But then we would still fail to account for the specificity difference in futurecontexts. Examples like the following are problematic for both versions:

(16) a. webungday

tuswatuswa/

yaapuswa

kabig.man

wemod.rel

kuelipot

mereturn come

‘one day, God will return’b. #?webung

dayswaswa

yaapubig.man

kamod.rel

wepot

kuelireturn

mecome

„on a certain day, God will return (namely next Tuesday)“

18 / 23

A map of hypotheses and their relations to evidence

19 / 23

Thank you!

20 / 23

Generic temporal clauses with tuswa

(17) a. orplace

tuswaone

nacomp

kamod

tepast

vyango

syokilyenefind

andef

meesfood

arplace

andef

tedisc

aneeat

meesfood

tuswaone

tedisc

kamod

wepot

masmust

pwerstay

a-teloc.dem-dem.med

murpiece

siithree

wefirst

„somewhere, if it finds some food there, it has to stay there fora little while first“

b. kacomp

ra=t1pl.in=dist

dustay

aand

onganehear

baséébird

en=tedem=dem.prox

tedist

pwestay

sórótalk

yanon

bwetistem.of

le-wotoptree.of-breadfruit

tuswaone

tedist

bwecont

kasay

nathat

wotopbreadfruit

kaasr

wepot

pabear.fruit

„When we hear this bird sing on a breadfruit tree, then it’sannouncing that this tree will soon bear fruit.“

21 / 23

Tuswa in a past context

There is one occurrence in my corpus with tuswa in a positive past realiscontext, where it gets a partitive reading.

(18) temelichild

vyavenfemale

tuswatuswa

mwereal

mecome

kuelireturn

‘then one of the (two) girls returned’ „then one of the womanreturned.“

22 / 23

Aloni, Maria, & Port, Angelika. 2006. Epistemic indefinitescrosslinguistically. Pages 1–14 of: Elfner, Emily, & Walkow, Martin (eds),Proceedings of nels, vol. 36.

Alonso-Ovalle, Luis, & Menéndez-Benito, Paula. 2010. Modal indefinites.Natural Language Semantics, 18, 1–31. 10.1007/s11050-009-9048-4.

23 / 23