Introduction to Pragmatics

Summer 2016

Tuesdays 2:30--4:00pm @ 2321.HS 3H

INSTRUCTOR

Todor Koev (Todor.Koev@uni-duesseldorf.de)

Reference

Human communication would not be possible without speakers

being able to refer to certain entities.

Not all language is about referring: Language is also about

ascribing properties to entities that have been referred to.

What is “referring”? o Do we refer to entities in the world or entities in the speaker’s

mind ? o Can we refer to just anything we’d like?

Two views: o Realists/Externalists: Meanings are in the outside world. o Mentalists/Internalists: Meanings are in the mind of the

speaker.

Mentalists vs. realists

A mock exchange between the two sides:

Realist: Referring expressions pick out entities that exist in the real world.

Mentalist: No, they pick out entities that need to only exist in the speaker’s mind.

Realist: But when I say “John is smart” I refer to a particular individual called “John”, not to a picture of John that I have in my mind.

Mentalist: But we can use referring expressions for non-existing entities, such as Santa Claus, Sherlock Holmes, Cinderella, etc.

…

Referring expressions

Reference in language is achieved through the use of referring

expressions.

Examples of referring expressions:

o Proper names: John, Mary, …

o Definite NPs (“definite descriptions”): the man on the street, …

o Possessive NPs: my lazy dog, …

o Anaphoric uses of 3rd person pronouns: he, she, it, …

o Demonstratives: that bagel, …

o Deictic expressions: I, you, here, now, …

Referring expressions cont’d

Sometimes it is clear what referring expressions refer to.

(1) My brother lives in Sacramento. (possessive NP) (2) The dog needs to go out. (definite NP) (3) That is a great car. (demonstrative)

Q: But what are the following “referring expressions” referring to?

(4) The tiger is a dangerous creature. (5) If you can’t come, that will be a shame. (6) Barbara’s sincerity is really touching. (7) War is never a good thing. (8) Yesterday was beautiful. (9) It is warm outside. (10) Who did you invite to the party?

Referring expressions cont’d

Pronoun Test: If an expression is referring, its referent can be picked out by a pronoun in subsequent discourse.

(1') My brother lives in Sacramento, where he teaches computer skills. (2') The dog needs to go out. Can you open the door for her? (3') That is a great car. I bet it gets wonderful mileage, too.

(4') The tiger is a dangerous creature; it should be avoided. (5') If you can’t come, that will be a shame. It will depress me. (6') Barbara’s sincerity is really touching, and it’s totally genuine. (7') War is never a good thing. It is the misery of mankind. (8') Yesterday was beautiful. It was the warmest day of the spring so far. (9') It is warm today; it’s been that way for a week now. (10') Who did you invite to the party? Are they friends with the host?

Reference and definiteness

Referring expressions are often assumed to share one crucial property: definiteness.

Roughly: Referring expressions are lexically determined to denote a specific entity.

Definiteness builds on the grammatical distinction between definite and indefinite NPs. o Definite NPs: the man on the street, the smallest prime number, … o Indefinite NPs: a black cat, some students, …

Important: While indefinite NPs need not refer, they can have

(something close to) referential uses. More on this later. (11) A man walked in. He sat down.

Definiteness

Today we will focus on one type of referring expressions: definite NPs.

What we say might hold true for some but not all of the referring expressions listed above.

We will compare the semantic/pragmatic properties of definite NPs to those of indefinite NPs.

Two properties of definite NP: o Uniqueness: There is exactly one entity that fits the descriptive

content of the NP. o Familiarity: The entity referred to needs to be known by the

addressee.

Uniqueness

Definite NPs refer to the single entity that has the property described

by the NP.

The referent of definite NPs then needs to be unique in the

discourse context.

(12) Give me the book.

(Cannot be uttered if there are no books or there is more than

one book around.)

(13) The queen of England is old.

(Cannot be uttered if England doesn’t have a queen or has

several queens.)

“Uniqueness” means “exactly one”.

Uniqueness formalized

We know from previous classes that definite NPs are

presuppositional.

Thus, if the uniqueness requirement is not met, definite NPs fail to

refer and the sentence is infelicitous.

A plausible meaning for definite NPs:

(14) cd d c

if is the only NP in context

the NPundefined otherwise

For example: c the man = the only man in c, otherwise undefined.

Uniqueness and indefinite NPs

There is no uniqueness requirement for indefinite NPs.

(15) You are at a school party where every parent who has at least one

daughter gets a free cookie. Parent X has three daughters.

Parent X: I have a daughter.

(16) Same situation as above. Parent Y has a son but no daughters.

Parent Y: If I had a daughter, I would be getting a cookie.

But there is no “anti-uniqueness” requirement on indefinite NPs

either. Indefinite NPs can (but need not) have referential uses.

(17) A man walked in. He sat down.

(We are talking about a unique man here.)

Familiarity Definite NPs refer to entities that are familiar to the discourse

participants. This could be because such entities have already been mentioned in

the discourse.

(18) There was a bum on the street. The bum was tired.

Or it could be because the speaker can safely assume the hearer is familiar with the entity referred to.

(19) The queen of England is old. (20) The smallest prime number is 2.

Definite NPs are infelicitous if the referent is not familiar to the hearer:

(21) No party has been previously mentioned. # I’m going to the party tonight.

Familiarity and indefinite NPs

Indefinite NPs carry an “anti-familiarity” requirement with them. They cannot be familiar to the addressee.

(22) John arrived at 6pm. A man was in a good mood.

(“a man” cannot refer back to John!)

(23) A German chancellor wants to bailout Greece. (Weird if the talk is about Angela Merkel.)

So definite and indefinite NPs are on the opposite sides when it comes to familiarity.

Intermediate summary

unique familiar

definites + +

indefinites +/

Discourse Representation Theory

To formalize familiarity, we need a semantic model that can record what entities are present in the discourse context.

Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) DRT involves boxes which consist of two parts:

o discourse referents: entities that have been mentioned or can safely be assumed to be familiar to all discourse participants

o conditions: statements involving given discourse referents Schematic example:

1

1 1

1

n

n

m n

discourse referents

condition ( )

conditions

condition ( )

x ... x

x ,...,x

x ,...,x

Formalizing familiarity

Indefinite NPs: Introduce new discourse referents. Definite NPs: Refer back to already established discourse referents. This is why indefinites feel “new”/“unfamiliar” while definites feel

“old”/“familiar. Indefinites (superscripts indicate new discourse referents):

(24) A catx caught a mousey. cat( )

mouse( )

caught( )

x y

x

y

x, y

Definites (subscripts indicate old discourse referents):

(25) The catx was happy. happy( )

...

x

Formalizing familiarity cont’d

DRT boxes accumulate information as discourse progresses. (26) A catx caught a mousey. The catx was happy. The mousey was

scared.

cat( )

mouse( )

caught( )

x y

x

y

x, y

cat( )

mouse( )

caught( )

happy( )

x y

x

y

x, y

x

cat( )

mouse( )

caught( )

happy( )

scared( )

x y

x

y

x, y

x

y

Uniqueness vs. familiarity

We have discussed two major properties of definite NPs: uniqueness and familiarity. o Uniqueness is more of a semantic property. o Familiarity is a purely pragmatic property.

We have suggested two different formal explanations, framed in two different formal systems.

But are those two properties “the same” property? o Option #1: Yes, these are the two sides of the same coin. o Option #2: No, these are different properties.

If different, there should be cases in which the two properties peel apart.

Indeed, such cases seem to exist.

Uniqueness vs. familiarity cont’d

The referent is unique but not familiar to the hearer: (27) If you’re going into the bedroom, would you mind bringing

back the big bag of potato chips that I left on the bed?

The referent is not unique but is familiar:

(28) Uttered in a room with three equally visible windows: It’s hot in here. Could you please open the window?

We might need both uniqueness and familiarity to characterize definiteness/indefiniteness. This is what we will assume.

The above examples suggest that definite NPs are not invariably unique and familiar.

Definiteness and anaphora

We know that pronouns and definite NPs can refer back to an entity that has been previously established in discourse. (29) A manx walked in. Hex sat down. (30) A manx walked in. The manx sat down.

This property of pronouns and definite NPs to be referentially

dependent on some preceding expression is called “anaphora”. Anaphora: A case of coreference of a pronoun/a definite NP with

a previously used expression. A typical anaphoric set-up:

(31) antecedentx … anaphorx

More on anaphora next time!

Quantifier binding

Anaphora is superficially similar but in actual fact very different from quantifier binding.

Quantifier binding: The reference of a pronoun depends on a previously used quantificational NP (every woman, most students,…).

Unlike in anaphoric uses, in bound uses the pronoun does not refer to a particular entity.

(32) Johnx went out with hisx wife.

Anaphora: We are talking about a particular man called “John”, so “his” refers to John.

(33) Every manx went out with hisx wife.

Quantifier binding: We are talking about different men, so “his” does not refer to a particular man.

Quantifier binding cont’d An anaphor and its antecedents can be far apart. The anaphoric

dependency can even cross a sentence boundary.

(34) Johnx went out. Hisx wife was happy. Quantifier binding requires a certain syntactic configuration (called

“c-command”) between the quantified NP and the bound pronoun. The quantified NP and the pronoun cannot be separated by a

sentence boundary. (35) Every manx went out. #Hisx wife was happy.

Quantifier binding is not anaphora!

Announcements

Assignment #3 due today.

Read for next time: “Anaphora”.