Upload
others
View
8
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Nega%ve Polar Ques%on Types in English
Maribel Romero, Anja Arnhold, Be?na Braun and Filippo Domaneschi
NELS 47
Umass at Amherst, October 14-‐16, 2016
Introduc%on: PQ Forms
• Different Polar Ques%on (PQ) forms:
(1) Did John drink? (2) Did John not drink? (3) Didn’t John drink? (4) DID John (really) drink?
• All these forms raise the same issue {p, ¬p}, i.e., they induce a
choice between p and ¬p. • But the forms cannot be used interchangeably. The choice of form
depends (perhaps among other things) on the epistemic bias of the speaker: – Original bias – Contextual evidence bias
PosQ LowNQ HiNQ really-‐PosQ
2
Introduc%on: Bias
• Original bias: e.g. PosQ vs. HiNQ
(5) Original bias (for a proposi%on p): Speaker’s belief or expecta%on –possibly private– that p is true, based on her epistemic state prior to the current situa%onal context and conversa%onal exchange.
(6) Scenario: Lawyer asking unbiased ques%ons at court: a. Did you see the culprit hit the vic%m? b. # Didn’t you see the culprit hit the vic%m?
(7) A PosQs p? doesn’t necessarily express original bias (for p or ¬p). A HiNQ n’t p? necessarily conveys original bias for p.
3 [Ladd 1981, Romero & Han 2004]
Introduc%on: Bias
• Contextual evidence bias: e.g. PosQ vs. LowNQ (8) Contextual evidence bias (for a proposi%on p)
Expecta%on that p is true (possibly contradic%ng prior belief of the speaker) induced by evidence that has just become mutually available to the par%cipants in the current discourse situa%on.
(9) Scenario: A enters S’ windowless computer room wearing a dripping wet raincoat (contextual evidence for p= it is raining). a. S: What’s the weather like out there? Is it raining? b. S: # What’s the weather like out there? Is it not raining? / Is it
sunny?
(10) A PosQ p? is compa%ble with contextual evidence for p. A LowNQ Not p? is incompa%ble with contextual evidence for p.
4 [Büring and Gunlogson 2000]
Introduc%on: Bias and Ambiguity
• While expressing original bias for p, HiNQs of form n’t p? allow for two intui%ve interpreta%ons: (11) Didn’t John drink?
• Disambiguated by the presence of a PPI vs. an NPI: (12) Didn’t John drink somePPI beer?
(13) Didn’t John drink anyNPI beer?
Outer reading only
Inner reading only
OUTER nega%on reading double-‐checking p
INNER nega%on reading double-‐checking ¬p
5 [Ladd 1981, Romero & Han 2004, Sudo 2013, a.o.]
Introduc%on: Goal
• In this talk, we mostly concentrate on nega%ve PQ forms: (14) Did John not drink? (15) Didn’t John drink a / any beer? (16) Didn’t John drink a / some beer?
• Blatant disagreement as to what nega%ve PQ forms share a joint bias profile and what forms have separate bias profiles: (17) Four different splits in the literature:
• OUR GOAL: To provide experimental evidence towards split (iv)
LowNQ Inner HiNQ Outer HiNQ
6
Introduc%on: Roadmap
• STUDY 1 on splits (i) and (ii): Bias condi%ons The predic%ons of lines (i) and (ii) are falsified in several bias
condi%ons.
• STUDY 2 on splits (iii) and (iv): Prosody Disambigua%on of inner vs. outer HiNQ correlates with
prosody. Explainable both under split (iii) and split (iv).
• STUDY 3 on splits (iii) and (iv): Reversed polarity Selec%on of really-‐PosQ vs. stacked nega%on HiNQs directly
follows from line (iv) but is unexpected under line (iii) .
7
Study 1
8
Study 1
• Four relevant pragma%c condi%ons: (18). – x-‐axis on original bias: for p vs. n(eutral) – y-‐axis on contextual evidence bias: n(eutral) vs. for ¬p – Cell n/n as control cell: PosQ
(18) Pragma%c condi%ons:
Original bias
Contextual Evidence bias
9
Study 1: Predic%ons
• SPLIT (i): van Rooij and Safarova (2003) – All three nega%ve PQ forms –LowNQs, inner and outer HiNQs– are treated
uniformly as requiring that the u%lity value of the pronounced proposi%on ¬p be higher than that for p.
– Concentra%ng on informa%vity-‐based u%lity (i.e., no desirability), the u%lity value of ¬p is higher than that of p when the speaker’s expecta%on is/was towards p, since: • learning the unexpected ¬p would be highly informa%ve and • learning the expected p would be less informa%ve.
• Predic%ons of split (i) for the relevant cells: (19)
10
Original bias
Contextual Evidence bias
Study 1: Predic%ons
• SPLIT (ii): Krira (2012) – LowNQs and inner HiNQs (double-‐checking ¬p) are treated uniformly as
having the underlying representa%on (20): (20) [REQUEST [ ASSERT ¬p]]
– This underlying representa%on is argued to be felicitous with contextual evidence bias for ¬p.
• Predic%ons of split (ii) for the relevant cells: (21)
11
Contextual Evidence bias
Original bias
Study 1: Design
Par1cipants: 42 English students (U. College London) -‐ [M = 24.7; SD = 2.9; 15 males, 27 fem] S1muli: 42 writen scenarios with two cap%ons and two pictures. Sample: CAPTION 1: “If it doesn't rain tomorrow, you will surely go to the beach. The forecast for the next morning indicates:”
p neutral ¬ p CAPTION 2: “The day ayer your flat mate Sam comes from the outside and enters in your bedroom..”
¬ p neutral p
Task – Select & Pronounce:
12
Study 1: Results
0
20
40
60
80
n/n n/not−p p/n p/not−pCondition
Perc
enta
ge o
f occ
urre
nce
Polar question typeHiNQ
LowNQ
PosQ
Fig. 1: Results of Study 1.
13 [Domaneschi, Romero & Braun, to appear]
Study 1: Discussion
0
20
40
60
80
n/n n/not−p p/n p/not−pCondition
Perc
enta
ge o
f occ
urre
nce
Polar question typeHiNQ
LowNQ
PosQ
Neither the general parallelism between LowQs and HiNQs predicted by split (i) nor the restricted parallelism predicted by split (ii) is borne out. Instead, LowNQs and HiNQs are selected as preferred choice in different condi%ons.
14
Split (i) Split (ii)
Background for studies 2 & 3
15
Ladd's "ambiguity"
• Ladd’s “ambiguity”: two intui%ve interpreta%ons of HiNQs: (22) Isn’t there a vegetarian restaurant around here?
– OUTER nega%on reading: S originally believes p and (with or without new evidence to the contrary) wants to confirm p by means of double-‐checking p.
(23) A: You guys must be starving. You want to get something to eat? S: Yeah, isn’t there a vegetarian restaurant around here?
– INNER nega%on reading: S originally believes p, has now tenta%vely inferred the opposite and wants to double-‐check ¬p, the new inference.
(24) S: I’d like to take you guys out to dinner while I’m here – we’d have %me to go somewhere around here before the evening session tonight, don’t you think? A: I guess, but there’s not really any place to go in Hyde Park. S: Oh, really, isn’t there a vegetarian restaurant around here?
16 [Ladd 1981]
Analysis in split (iv)
• SPLIT (iv): Romero & Han 2004: – Preposing of nega%on introduces the VERUM operator: (25) [[VERUM]] = λp<s,t>.λws. ∀w' ∈ Epix(w) [ ∀w" ∈ Convx(w') [ p ∈ CGw"] ] – Nega%on may scope over VERUM , as in (26), or under VERUM , as in (27):
(26) [Q [¬ VERUM [p]]]
(27) [Q [VERUM [¬ p]]]
– The two readings are disambiguated by PPIs/NPIs and possibly by other means.
S(peaker) asks A(ddressee) for doubts about p. The prejacent –the proposi%on the ques%on is
about– is p. S is s%ll leaning towards her original belief p.
S asks A for conclusive evidence for ¬p. The prejacent is ¬p. S is considering switching to the new inference ¬p.
Outer reading
Inner reading
17 [Romero & Han 2004, see also Romero 2015]
Analysis in split (iii)
• SPLIT (iii): AnderBois 2011 – A special lexical entry for high nega%on, abbreviated ¬hi, includes
VERUM as one of its ingredients
– HiNQs unambiguously have the structure (28): (28) [ Q ¬hi p ]
– By default, S(peaker) has a tendency towards retaining her original belief p.
– Devia%ng from this tendency requires an NPI –whose pragma%c
proper%es overwrite the default– or other overt marking.
The prejacent is p. S s%ll leaning towards her original belief p. Outer reading
The prejacent is p. S is considering switching to the new inference ¬p. Inner-‐like interpreta%on
18 [AnderBois 2011, see also Northrup 2014]
Study 2
19
Study 2
• The ques%on arises, what other overt marking may help dis%nguish the outer and inner interpreta%ons.
• More concretely:
– Does some prosodic cue correlate with the outer/inner dis%nc%on?
– If so, does the meaning contribu%on of this cue –to the extent that this meaning can be pinned down– allows us to favor one analysis over the other?
• Caveat! Study 2 was conducted in University of Alberta, where an uptalk variety of English is spoken. Thus, the shape of prosodic cues may differ from those in other varie%es.
20
Study 2: Design
• 4 condi%ons: Ownership of checked proposi%on (mine/Speaker's vs. other’s/Addresee's) x Certainty about checked proposi%on (high vs. low)
• Task: – Read dialogue se?ng up S’s belief that p, A’s belief that ¬p – Dialogue describes S’s wish to check p or ¬p and her degree of certainty about
the checked proposi%on (90% as high, 60% as low). – Choose HiNQ or LowNQ to resolve conflict and uter it out loud
• 24 par%cipants (15 female, 8 male, 1 other): Na%ve speakers of Canadian English, students at U. Alberta
• 16 experimental items, each appeared twice per list in different condi%ons (2 blocks)
• 15 fillers, each appeared twice per list in different condi%ons → 62 dialogues per list
• Analysis with linear mixed-‐effects models (Baayen et al. 2008)
21
Study 2: Results (2)
Fig. 2: Results of prosody of HiNQs.
(29) Aren't they plan%ng a waterlily ↑? (30) Aren't they plan%ng a waterlily ↑?
22
Study 2: Discussion
• A related cue in falling and rising declara%ves? (31) It is raining ↓. (32) It is raining ↑?
• Gunlogson (2003): locus of commitment/authority – Declara%ve syntax signals commitment to the prejacent (= ‘it is raining’). – A final fall ↓ signals that the locus of the commitment/authority is Speaker. – A final rise↑ signals that the locus of the commitment/authority is Addressee.
• Adap%ng this idea to HiNQs under Romero & Han's analysis: – A HiNQ n't p? expresses original bias for p and (re-‐)opens the issue {p, ¬ p}. – A final low rise ↑ signals that the locus of the authority is Speaker.
– A final high rise ↑ signals that the locus of the authority is Addressee.
Outer reading, with S retaining her original belief p
Inner reading, with S considering switching to ¬p 23
Study 2: Discussion
• A related cue in reversed polarity tags? (33) Amalia ley, didn't she ↓? (34) Amalia ley, didn't she ↑?
• Farkas & Roelofsen (to appear), building in Northrup (2014): – A final fall ↓ signals that S's condi%onal commitment to the prejacent proposi%on p
(= 'that Amalia ley') is moderate to high. – A final rise↑ signals that S's condi%onal commitment to the prejacent proposi%on p
is low.
• Adap%ng this idea to HiNQs under AnderBois' analysis: – A HiNQ n't p? always has p as the prejacent: [Q ¬hi p]. – A final low rise ↑ signals that S's condi%onal commitment to prejacent p is high(ish).
– A final high rise ↑ signals that S's condi%onal commitment to prejacent p is low. Outer reading, with S retaining her original belief p
Inner reading, with S considering switching to ¬p 24
Study 2: Discussion
• A prosodic cue has been found to correlate with the two interpreta%ons of HiNQs: – Outer reading = final low rise ↑ – Inner reading/interpreta%on = final high rise ↑
• Different meanings may be assigned to this cue, …
• … making the finding in principle compa%ble both with split (iii) and with split (iv).
25
Study 2: A second result
26
• A HiNQ is preferred over a LowNQ no mater whether the Speaker's original belief p is checked or the new inference ¬p is checked.
Study 3
27
Study 3
• Back to Ladd’s “ambiguity": – OUTER nega%on reading:
S originally believes p and (with or without new evidence to the contrary) wants to confirm p by means of double-‐checking p.
– INNER nega%on reading: S originally believes p, has now tenta%vely inferred the opposite and wants to double-‐check ¬p, the new inference.
• Idea: Start with original belief in a nega%ve proposi%on – OUTER nega%on reading:
S originally believes ¬p and ... – INNER nega%on reading: S originally believes ¬p and ...
28
Study 3: Predic%ons
• Original speaker belief for a posi%ve p (= ‘John drank’)
• Original speaker belief for a nega%ve ¬p (= ‘John did not drink’)
• Caveat: The stacked nega%on form is somewhat marked. So, even in the condi%ons where both splits predict it to be correct, it may not be always selected.
In split (iv): [Q ¬ VERUM ¬p] [Q VERUM ¬¬p]
Didn’t John not drink? DID John drink?
In split (iii): [Q ¬hi ¬p]
Didn’t John not drink?
In split (iv): [Q ¬ VERUM p] [Q VERUM ¬p]
In split (iii): [Q ¬hi p]
Didn’t John drink? Didn’t John drink? Didn’t John drink?
29
Study 3: Design
• 4 condi%ons: Ownership of checked proposi%on (mine/Speaker's vs. other’s/Addressee's) x Certainty about checked proposi%on (high vs. low)
• Task: – Read dialogue se?ng up S’s belief that ¬p, A’s belief that p – Dialogue describes S’s wish to check p or ¬p and her degree of certainty about
the checked proposi%on (90% as high, 60% as low). – Choose (really-‐)PosQ or StackedNega%on to resolve conflict
• 30 par%cipants (23 female, 7 male): Na%ve speakers of Canadian English
• 16 experimental items, each appeared once per list in one of the condi%ons
• 16 fillers with choice between other ques%on types (HiNQ, LowNQ, declara%ve ques%on, really-‐PosQ) 32 scenarios per list
• Analysis with linear mixed-‐effects models (Baayen et al. 2008)
30
Study 3: Results
31
Study 3: Discussion
32
SPLIT (iv) checking S's proposi%on [Q ¬ VERUM ¬p] Didn't John not drink?
• In the "mine" condi%ons (outer reading), the stacked nega%on form Didn't John not drink? is in principle predicted to be preferred over the (really-‐)PosQ form DID John drink? by both approaches. The fact that the stacked nega%on form is preferred only in approx. 50% of the cases may be due to its inherent markedness.
SPLIT (iii) [Q ¬hi ¬p] Didn't John not drink?
Study 3: Discussion
33
SPLIT (iv) Checking A's proposi%on [Q VERUM ¬¬p] DID John drink?
• In the "other" condi%ons (inner reading), the split (iv) approach predicts the (really-‐)PosQ form DID John drink? to be preferred over the stacked nega%on form. Since markedness does not play against the preferred form, the preference is expected to be significant. This predic%on is borne out.
Study 3: Discussion
34
• Split (iii) does not predict a difference between the "mine" condi%ons (genuine outer reading) and the "other" condi%ons (inner-‐like interpreta%ons). In both cases, to express the combina%on of biases in the context (original bias for ¬p, contextual evidence for p), the structure [Q ¬hi ¬p] should be equally available (with the a small rise in the "mine" ↑ condi%ons and a high rise ↑ in the "other").
• It is unclear, at this point, why the (really-‐)PosQ form is a stronger compe%tor in one condi%on than in other.
SPLIT (iii) [Q ¬hi ¬p] Didn't John not drink?
Conclusion
• Four different splits of nega%ve polar ques%ons in the literature:
• STUDY 1: LowNQs and HiNQs are selected across different bias condi%ons.
Against splits (i) and (ii).
• STUDY 2: Final rise ↑ vs. ↑ correlates with outer vs. inner reading of HiNQs. Explainable both under split (iii) and (iv).
• STUDY 3: Really-‐PosQ are significantly preferred to stacked nega%on HiNQs in certain condi%ons with reversed polarity. Tenta%vely favors split (iv) over split (iii).
35
Thank you for your aten%on…
also from…
36
Be?na Braun University of Konstanz
Filippo Domaneschi University of Genoa
Anja Arnhold University of Alberta
References [A] AnderBois, S. 2011. Issues and Alterna%ves. Ph.D. disserta%on, UCSC. [B] Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. 2008. Mixed-‐effects modeling with crossed random
effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412 [B&G] Büring, D. & C. Gunlogson. 2000. Aren’t posiBve and negaBve polar quesBons the same? [DRB] Domaneschi, F., M. Romero & B. Braun. To appear. Bias in polar ques%on: Evidence from English
and German produc%on experiments. Glossa. [F&R] Farkas, D. & F. Roelofsen. To appear. Division of labor in the interpreta%on of declara%ves and
interroga%ves. Journal of SemanBcs. [G] Gunlogson, C. 2003. True to From. Rising and Falling DeclaraBves as QuesBons in English. NY:
Routledge. [Kr] Krira, M. To appear. Negated polarity ques%ons as denega%ons of asser%ons, ms. [L] Ladd. R. 1981. A first look at the seman%cs and pragma%cs of nega%ve ques%ons and tag ques%ons,
CLS 17. [N] Northrup, O. 2014. Grounds for commitments, UCSC diss. [R] Repp, S. (2013). Common ground management: modal par%cles, illocu%onary nega%on and VERUM.
In Beyond Expressives: ExploraBons in Use-‐CondiBonal Meaning. Pp. 231-‐274. Leiden: Brill. [Ro] Romero, M. 2015. High Nega%on in Subjunc%ve Condi%onals and Polar Ques%ons, SuB 19. [R&H] Romero, M. & C.-‐h. Han 2004. On nega%ve yes/no ques%ons. L&P 27. [S] Sudo, Y. 2013. Biased polar ques%ons in English and Japanese. In Beyond Expressives: ExploraBons in
Use-‐CondiBonal Meaning. Pp. 275-‐296. Leiden: Brill. [vR&S] van Rooij, R. & M. Šafárová 2003. On polar ques%ons, SALT 13.
37