Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A QUD-based account of thediscourse particle naman in
Tagalog
Scott AnderBois
Brown UniversityAFLA 23 – TUFS, Tokyo, Japan
June 10-12, 2016
Introduction
Discourse particles in Tagalog
I Tagalog has a rich inventory of 2nd position clitics conveyingmodal, evidential, and discourse-related meanings.
I One of the most puzzling of these is the particle naman.
I naman is often described as a marker of ‘contrast’ and givenglosses like ‘on the other hand’, ‘but’, and ‘also’:
(1) Nagaarallearn.AV.Impf
siDir
Linda.Linda
Naglalaroplay.AV.Imp
namannaman
siDir
Carmen.Carmen
‘Linda is studying. Carmen, on the other hand, is playing.’ Schachter
& Otanes (1972)
Two problems
Problem 1: Not always contrastive
I While naman often conveys contrast, many examples don’tinvolve contrast:
(2) Context: A asks B “Will you marry me?”. B replies:Ooyes
naman.naman
‘Yes, of course.’
(3) Context: The speaker is asked what the speaker and hearer should dotoday.Ma-ramiAdj-quantity
namangnaman.Lnk
restaurantrestaurant
saObl
mall.mall
‘Well, there are many restaurants at the mall.’
Two problems
Problem 2: naman across sentence types
I Schachter & Otanes (1972) give very di↵erentcharacterizations of naman across sentence types:
(4) Imperative – “politeness together with mild reproach”Tulung-anhelp.Imp-PV
mo2sg.Indir
namannaman
ako.1sg.Dir
‘Please help me. (Don’t just sit there.)’ Schachter & Otanes (1972)
(5) Predicative adjective – “critical or negative attitude”Ma-rumiAdj-dirt
namannaman
itothis
‘This is dirty (and I’m displeased).’ Schachter & Otanes (1972)
This talk
naman as marker of a closed QUD
I Address problem 1 by developing a unified account of namanas marking closure of the prior immediate QUD.
I Contrastive uses are a special case where the prior immediateQUD is marked closed, and . . .
I . . . the utterance containing naman happens to address asister QUD.
I More tentative thoughts on the prospects for extending theapproach to address problem 2.
Road map
§2 presents data from contrastive uses of naman andintroduces a QUD-based analysis
§3 shows several kinds of cases where naman isfelicitous with no contrast present
§4 refines the QUD-based analysis to handle these caseswith no contrast
§5 preliminarily explores the prospects of extending theaccount to two sentence types which Schachter &Otanes (1972) describe quite di↵erently:
I naman in imperatives: to express “politenesstogether with mild reproach”
I naman with predicative adjectives, to express“a critical or negative attitude”
§6 concludes.
§2: Contrastive uses of naman
Semantic opposition uses of naman
I Schachter & Otanes (1972), p. 425 distinguish 2 uses ofnaman with all declaratives.
I “to express dissimarility between two situations”:
(6) a. Nagaarallearn.AV.Impf
siDir
Linda.Linda
Naglalaroplay.AV.Imp
namannaman
siDir
Carmen.Carmen
‘Linda is studying. Carmen, on the other hand, is playing.’Schachter & Otanes (1972)
b. Bumilibuy.AF.Perf
ako1sg.Dir
ngIndir
karnemeat
kahapon.yesterday
Ngayon,today
isdafish
naman.naman‘I bought meat yesterday. Today, (it will be) fish (instead).’(Schachter & Otanes, 1972)
Comparison with English butCorrection/counterexpectation not due to naman
Inaman in these uses is comparable to ‘semantic opposition’uses of English but (see, e.g. Toosarvandani (2014)):
(7) a. The player is tall, but agile. Counterexpectational
b. Liz doesn’t dance, but sing. Corrective
c. John is tall, but Bill is short. Semantic Opposition
I naman is possible with counterexpectation and certaincorrections, but it is pero or ngunit convey these inferences:
(8) Mayexist
umuugoyrock.AV.Impf
talaga-ngreally-Lnk
duyancradle
ngIndir
bata,child
perobut
walanot.exist
namannaman
tao.person
‘Something is really rocking the child’s cradle, but no one is there.’Martin (2004)
Shift of viewpoint uses of naman
Questioner-responder shifts
I Schachter & Otanes (1972)’s second use they describe is “toexpress a shift of viewpoint”:
(9) Context: Kumusta ka? ‘How are you?’Mabuti.fine
Ikaw2sg.Dir
naman?naman
‘Fine. And [what about] you?’ (Alt. ‘Your turn.’) Schachter &
Otanes (1972)
(10) JuanJuan
angDir
pangalanname
ko.1sg.Indir
Atand
angDir
iyo2sg.Indir
naman?naman
‘My name is Juan. And yours?’ Schachter & Otanes (1972)
QUDs & contrastive naman: I
Questions Under Discussion (QUDs) and D-trees
I QUD: hierarchically structured set of abstract questions weare jointly endeavored to resolve at a given moment.
(e.g. Ginzburg (1996), Roberts (1996), Rojas-Esponda (2014a))
I Immediate QUD: the highest ranked question in the QUD.
I D-trees as a representational tool: (Buring (2003))
Who ate what?
Who ate the beans?
Fred ate the beans Mary. . . . . .
Who ate the eggplant?
QUDs & contrastive naman: II
Discourse particles and QUDs
I Since (at least) typically implicit, languages have variousmeans of encoding aspects of what the speaker takes theQUD structure to be.
I Many discourse particles claimed to do just this:
I Eckardt (2007): German noch signals a series of prior positiveanswers to sisters of the immediate QUD.
I Davis (2009): Japanese yo encodes relevance to the immediateQUD (simplifying significantly).
I Rojas-Esponda (2014b): German doch signals a reopening of apreviously closed immediate QUD.
QUDs & contrastive naman: III
Contrastive topic in a QUD framework
I Buring (2003) analyzes Contrastive Topic (CT) intonation inEnglish as indicating a QUD strategy:
Who ate what?
What did Fred eat?
FredCT ate the beansF
What did Mary eat?
MaryCT ate the eggplantF
I CT indicates a shift between sister QUDs . . .
I . . . and together with focus constrains which QUDs these are
QUDs & contrastive naman: IV
Contrastive uses of naman in a QUD framework
I In the uses of naman we have seen, there is similarly closureof the prior immediate QUD and the opening of a sister QUD:
(11) Nagaarallearn.AV.Impf
siDir
Linda.Linda
Naglalaroplay.AV.Imp
namannaman
siDir
Carmen.Carmen
‘Linda is studying. Carmen, on the other hand, is playing.’
What is everyone doing?
What is Linda doing?
Linda is studying
What is Carmen doing?
Carmen naman is playing
I Pragmatic topic and focus may constrain the possible QUDs,but need not. (e.g. Kroeger (1993), Kaufman (2005))
Cross-linguistic comparisonsEnglish CT and beyond
I English CT is ‘forward-looking’, whereas naman is‘backward-looking’.
I However, recent work has claimed that CT in other languagescan be ‘backward-looking’ (Constant (2014) in Chinese,Mikkelsen (2016) in Karuk)
I Since English CT incorporates intonational focus (settingaside boundary tones, F= H*, CT = L+H*), it constrains theQUD in particular ways
I Given the pragmatics of deaccenting in English (unlikeTagalog), this means that CT is obligatory in English whenpossible (Buring (2003), Constant (2014))
I Beyond CT, contrastive naman is most similar to semanticopposition but (we return to this comparison later)
Non-contrastive naman
Naman is not always contrastive
I The examples we have seen thus far all intuitively involvecontrast of some kind.
I However, naman is also frequently used in declaratives wherethere is no contrast.
I Descriptively, there are two uses of this sort:
1. to convey the obviousness of the previous immediate QUD.2. to signal a move to a sub-question/sub-issue of the previous
immediate QUD.
I (cf. Bloomfield (1917): naman “expresses transition toanother subject, hence often also mild contrast”)
Obviousness uses
Obviousness uses of naman
I naman often is used to signal that the resolution of the priorimmediate QUD is (or should be) obvious:
(12) Context: A asks B “Will you marry me?”. B replies:Ooyes
naman.naman
‘Yes, of course.’
(13) Context: A Facebook discussion about whether a recipe which callsfor steaming a chocolate cake counts as ‘no-bake’.“Of course po. Steaming is definitely not baking. Steamed angsiopao. Hindi naman yun baked. Lol!”
(14) Context: Responding to the question ‘Who likes chocolate?’Lahatall
namannaman
ayTop
mahiligfond
saObl
tsokolatechocolate
‘Everyone likes chocolate (duh!)’
Move to subquestion uses
Raising sub-issues
I The second non-contrastive use is to shift the immediateQUD to a sub-question/sub-issue:
(15) Context: Spkr is asked what the speaker and hearer should do today.Ma-ramiAdj-quantity
namangnaman
restaurantrestaurant
saObl
mall.mall
‘Well, there are many restaurants at the mall.’
(16) Context: Addr states that Juan is going to the concert. Spkr replies:HindiNeg
siya3sg.Dir
pupunta,go
nagcancelcancel
namannaman
siya.3sg.Dir
‘He’s not going, he cancelled.’
I NB: this assumes a more flexible notion of sub-questionhoodthan some authors assume (e.g. Rojas-Esponda (2014a))
§4: A unified QUD-based account
(Immediate) QUDs defined
I We assume Roberts (1996)’s definition of the CommonGround (CG) and QUD. Informally:
I QUD is a function from a discourse “move” m to a stack ofquestions ordered by precedence and constrained bysub-questionhood.
I CG is a function from a discourse “move” m to the set ofpropositions which is the speaker and hearer’s CommonGround.
I We define the immediate QUD as follows:
(17) Imm-QUD(m) = the unique question q such that for all q0 2QUD(m) where q 6= q0, q0 < q
The e↵ect of naman
naman as a marker of QUD-closure
I Using naman in a discourse move m signals the following:
(18) naman(m) indicates that Imm-QUD(m � 1) is (or shouldbe) entailed by CG(m)
I N.B. naman does not directly indicate anything about thecurrent QUD-structure (e.g. Imm-QUD(m)).
I However, regular norms of ‘traversal’ through QUD structuresstill apply (e.g. Buring (2003), Rojas-Esponda (2014a))
I Crucially, while naman marks Imm-QUD(m� 1) as resolved,it does not indicate any sort of non-monotonic revision to theoverall QUD structure.
Returning to subcases
Three kinds of QUDs
I The three subcases we have seen, then, represent di↵erentkinds of Imm-QUD(m)
I Imm-QUD(m) is determined as elsewhere: by inference andother linguistic elements (e.g. focus, pero ‘but’, ngunit ‘but’):
Contrastive
. . .
m � 1 m
(Sisterhood)
Obviousness
. . .
m � 1m
. . .
(Identity)
Move to subquestion
. . .
m � 1
. . . m
. . .
(Subquestion)
Returning to the data
Analysis of contrastive naman
(19) Nagaarallearn.AV.Impf
siDir
Linda.Linda
Naglalaroplay.AV.Imp
namannaman
siDir
Carmen.Carmen
‘Linda is studying. Carmen, on the other hand, is playing.’
I Imm-QUD(m � 1): ‘What is Linda doing?’
I Imm-QUD(m): ‘What is Carmen doing?’
I Therefore, naman in the second clause, move m, indicatesthat Imm-QUD(m � 1) is settled by CG(m)
I Since m is construed as addressing a sister QUD, naman hasthe e↵ect of signalling this shift
Obviousness use revisited
Analysis of obviousness naman
I Imm-QUD(m � 1): ‘Who likes chocolate?’
I Imm-QUD(m): ‘Who likes chocolate?’
I Therefore, naman in the second clause, move m, indicatesthat Imm-QUD(m � 1) is settled by CG(m)
I Since m is construed as addressing an identical QUD, namanhas the e↵ect of signalling that the speaker regards thisquestion as already settled.
(20) Context: Responding to the question ‘Who likes chocolate?’Lahatall
namannaman
ayTop
mahiligfond
saObl
tsokolatechocolate
‘Everyone likes chocolate (duh!)’
Contexts that don’t allow naman(21) #Correction with same QUD:
a. SiDir
JohnJohn
baQ
angDir
kumaineat.Pfv.AV
ngIndir
tinola?soup
‘Was John the one who ate the soup?’
b. Hindi,No
siDir
BillBill
(#naman)naman
yungthat.Lnk
kumaineat.Pfv.AV
ngIndir
tinola.soup
‘No, it was Bill who ate the soup.’
(22) #Move to superquestion:
a. Kailanwhen
mo2sg.Indir
pinataykill.Pfv.PV
siDir
Fred?Fred
‘When did you kill Fred?’
b. HindiNeg
ko1sg.Indir
(#?naman)naman
siya3sg.Dir
pinataykill.Pfv.PV
Intended: ‘I didn’t kill him at all.’1
I Finally, naman is infelicitous with non-sequiturs and otherattempts to change the QUD altogether.
§5: naman across sentence types
Thoughts on naman with imperatives
I Schachter & Otanes (1972): naman in imperatives:“politeness together with mild reproach”
I Decision to choose a particular action is the same kind of thingas a QUD (see, e.g. Davis (2009))
I naman in imperative move m: signal that the decision toperform the action should already be settled by CG(m).
I Preliminary support from contrast like (23):
(23) Tulung-anhelp.Imp-PV
mo2sg.Indir
namannaman
ako.1sg.Dir
‘Please help me. (Don’t just sit there.)’ Schachter & Otanes (1972)
a. X Context: You can see that my foot is stuck and that I am inpain.
b. 7 Context: Unbeknownst to you, my foot is stuck under a table.
Predicate adjectivesI S&O: naman with adjectives: “critical or negative attitude”
(24) Mahalexpensive
namannaman
ito.this
‘This is expensive (and I am unpleased).’
I However, their examples have naturally negative adjectives –positive antonyms yield the opposite:
(25) Muraa↵ordable
namannaman
ito.this
‘This is so a↵ordable (I can buy it).’
Possibility 1 naman in these cases signals a move to asub-question about the degree to which the predicateholds.
Possibility 2 naman signals that a prior QUD (here, ‘Can I buyit?’) is resolved.
I N.B. possibilities not mutually exclusive (cf. English too)
Predicate adjectivesI S&O: naman with adjectives: “critical or negative attitude”
(24) Mahalexpensive
namannaman
ito.this
‘This is expensive (and I am unpleased).’
I However, their examples have naturally negative adjectives –positive antonyms yield the opposite:
(25) Muraa↵ordable
namannaman
ito.this
‘This is so a↵ordable (I can buy it).’
Possibility 1 naman in these cases signals a move to asub-question about the degree to which the predicateholds.
Possibility 2 naman signals that a prior QUD (here, ‘Can I buyit?’) is resolved.
I N.B. possibilities not mutually exclusive (cf. English too)
Predicate adjectivesI S&O: naman with adjectives: “critical or negative attitude”
(24) Mahalexpensive
namannaman
ito.this
‘This is expensive (and I am unpleased).’
I However, their examples have naturally negative adjectives –positive antonyms yield the opposite:
(25) Muraa↵ordable
namannaman
ito.this
‘This is so a↵ordable (I can buy it).’
Possibility 1 naman in these cases signals a move to asub-question about the degree to which the predicateholds.
Possibility 2 naman signals that a prior QUD (here, ‘Can I buyit?’) is resolved.
I N.B. possibilities not mutually exclusive (cf. English too)
§6: Conclusionsnaman as marker of prior QUD being resolved
I Showed that di↵erent uses of naman are due to di↵erentcurrent immediate QUDs:
Contrastive: sister to prior QUD
Obviousness: identical to prior QUD
Move to subquestion: subquestion of prior QUD
I Related naman to other markers of contrast and otherQUD-particles such as German doch, namlich, etc.
I Supports the idea that rather than indicating a wholediscourse strategy a la Buring (2003), Contrastive Topicmight be best thought of as indicating closure of a QUD withfocus intonation relating this to a new QUD (similar toConstant (2014)).
Maraming salamat! Thank you!
Thanks to anonymous AFLA reviewers, Jenny Tan, and especiallyto Amber Teng for her hard work and patience as a languageconsultant.
References: I
Bloomfield, Leonard (1917) Tagalog texts with grammatical analysis. Universityof Illinois Studies in Language and Literature III(3).
Buring, Daniel (2003) On D-Trees, Beans, and B-Accents. Linguistics andPhilosophy 26(5): 511–545.
Constant, Noah (2014) Contrastive Topic: Meanings and Realizations. Ph.D.thesis, University of Massachusetts.
Davis, Christopher (2009) Decisions, dynamics and the Japanese particle yo.Journal of Semantics 26: 329–366.
Eckardt, Regine (2007) ‘Was noch? ’ Navigating in Question Answer Discourse.In Interfaces and Interface Conditions, Volume 6, Mouton de Gruyter, 77–96.
Ginzburg, Jonathan (1996) Dynamics and the semantics of dialogue. InLanguage, Logic, and Computation, vol. 1.
Kaufman, Daniel (2005) Aspects of pragmatic focus in Tagalog. In The manyfaces of Austronesian voice systems: some new empirical studies, ResearchSchool of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University,175–196, online at:https://www.academia.edu/1919247/Aspects of pragmatic focus in Tagalog.
References: IIKrifka, Manfred (1999) Additive particles under stress. In Proceedings of SALT
8, CLC Publications, 111–128.
Kroeger, Paul (1993) Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog.CSLI.
Martin, J.R. (2004) Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Tagalog. JohnBenjamins, 255–304.
Mikkelsen, Line (2016) Contrastive topic in Karuk, talk at SULA 9.
Roberts, Craige (1996) Information Structure in Discourse. In OSU WorkingPapers in Linguistics, revised 1998 version, retrieved from author’s webpage8/20/09.
Rojas-Esponda, Tania (2014a) A discourse model for uberhaupt. Semantics &Pragmatics 7: 1–45.
Rojas-Esponda, Tania (2014b) A QUD account of German doch. InProceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18, Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Falaus,Aritz Irurtzun, & Bryan Leferman, eds., 359–376.
Schachter, Paul & Fe T. Otanes (1972) Tagalog Reference Grammar.University of California Press.
Toosarvandani, Maziar (2014) Contrast and the structure of discourse.Semantics & Pragmatics 7(4): 1–57.
EXTRA SLIDES
Extra slides
Ensuring semantic oppositionRuling out parallelism cases
I One potential worry: the account seems to predict thatnaman can be used in cases of parallelism.
(26) #Nagaarallearn.AV.Impf
siDir
Linda.Linda
Nagaaralplay.AV.Imp
namannaman
siDir
Carmen.Carmen
‘Linda is studying. Carmen is studying.’
I Suppose Imm-QUD(m1) = ‘Is Linda studying?’ andImm-QUD(m2) = ‘Is Carmen studying?’.
Response 1: QUD structures don’t include individual polarquestions (i.e. (26) is bad because Imm-QUDis ‘Who is studying?’ in both clauses).
Response 2: Parallelism must be expressed overtly with rin.When expressed, this forces the higher-levelImm-QUD (see Krifka (1999) on too)
Obviousness used concessivelyConcessions as a particular case of obviousness
I One particular use of this sort is in concessives:
(27) a. Alamknow
ko1sg.Indir
namangnaman.Lnk
sadya-ngpurpose-Lnk
magkalayobe.far.apart
angAng
ating1pl.Indir.Lnk
mundo.world.
‘I know, of course, there’s a reason our worlds are far apart.’
b. Perobut
aking1sg.Indir.Lnk
ma-ipa-pangako-ng:will.promise.you.Lnk
‘but I will promise you (this):’
(28) Kahitalthough
alamknow
namangnaman.Lnk
walangnot.exist.Lnk
pag-asa,Nmlz-hope
angDir
pusoheart
ko-ng1sg.Indir-Lnk
ito-’ythis-Top
’diNeg
pamimigaybe.free
‘Even if I know there’s no hope, my heart won’t be free (i.e. availableto anyone else)’