1

Verbal Verbal HowHow Questions in Questions in MandarinMandarin

Hongyuan DongHongyuan DongCornell UniversityCornell UniversityEmail: hd34@cornell.eduEmail: hd34@cornell.edu

December 19, 2007 December 19, 2007 Amsterdam ColloquiumAmsterdam Colloquium

Universiteit van Amsterdam, the NetherlandsUniversiteit van Amsterdam, the Netherlands

2

What can we ask?What can we ask?

BrutusBrutus stabbedstabbed CaesarCaesar violently?violently? 1.argument 2.predicate 1.argument 2.predicate 4.verb 3.adjunct4.verb 3.adjunct1.Who stabbed Caesar violently?1.Who stabbed Caesar violently?2. What did Brutus do?2. What did Brutus do?3. How did Brutus stab Caesar?3. How did Brutus stab Caesar?4.Indirectly as: What did John do to Caesar 4.Indirectly as: What did John do to Caesar

violently?violently? Directly as ?Directly as ?

3

A Mandarin ExampleA Mandarin Example

1.1. Brutus zenme-le Caesar?Brutus zenme-le Caesar?

Brutus how-PBrutus how-PERFECTIVEERFECTIVE Caesar?Caesar?

What did Brutus do to Caesar?What did Brutus do to Caesar?

But literally (1) could be translated as:But literally (1) could be translated as:

Brutus how-ed Caesar?Brutus how-ed Caesar?

(This is a direct question, but not an (This is a direct question, but not an echo-question)echo-question)

4

Goals and ClaimsGoals and Claims To give a semantic formulation to the verbal “how” To give a semantic formulation to the verbal “how”

questions. I claim that the verbal “how” ranges over questions. I claim that the verbal “how” ranges over properties of events.properties of events.

To give a compositional semantics of such questions. I To give a compositional semantics of such questions. I propose a restricted variable approach and a propose a restricted variable approach and a corresponding abstraction rule.corresponding abstraction rule.

To account for three restrictions on the use of such To account for three restrictions on the use of such questions. I argue that the verbal “how” is uniformly questions. I argue that the verbal “how” is uniformly used as a transitive verb, and that the patient role should used as a transitive verb, and that the patient role should be further distinguished by the [affective] feature to be further distinguished by the [affective] feature to trigger the malefactivity presupposition.trigger the malefactivity presupposition.

To evaluate two approaches to indefinites: choice To evaluate two approaches to indefinites: choice functions (Reinhart 1998) vs. Structured Variable functions (Reinhart 1998) vs. Structured Variable (Abusch 1994). I argue that a semantic account of the (Abusch 1994). I argue that a semantic account of the verbal “how” questions can be achieved in the verbal “how” questions can be achieved in the Structured Variable approach , but not in the Choice Structured Variable approach , but not in the Choice Function approach.Function approach.

To discuss the connection between the meanings of the To discuss the connection between the meanings of the verbal “how” and the adverbial “how”. I point out that verbal “how” and the adverbial “how”. I point out that they are both related to properties of events.they are both related to properties of events.

5

Basic DataBasic Data

1. Zenme-le? 1. Zenme-le?

How-edHow-ed

What happened?What happened?

2. Yuehan zenme-2. Yuehan zenme-le? le?

John how-ed John how-ed

What happened to What happened to John? John?

3. Yuehan zenme-le Bi’er? 3. Yuehan zenme-le Bi’er? John how-ed Bill John how-ed Bill What did John do to Bill?4. What did John do to Bill?4.

4.*Yuehan zenme-le Bi’er yi-4.*Yuehan zenme-le Bi’er yi-ben-shu ben-shu John how-ed Bill one-John how-ed Bill one-book book John what Bill a book?John what Bill a book?

6

Three RestrictionsThree Restrictions

1.1. Non-Agentivity:Non-Agentivity:

John how-ed?John how-ed?

What happened TO John?What happened TO John? ≠ ≠ What did John do?What did John do?

2.2. Non-Transitiviy:Non-Transitiviy: * John how-ed Bill a book?* John how-ed Bill a book?

7

Three RestrictionsThree Restrictions

3. Malefactivity:3. Malefactivity:

John kissed Mary, and she was happy.John kissed Mary, and she was happy. * John how-ed Mary?* John how-ed Mary? John kissed Bill, and he was annoyed.John kissed Bill, and he was annoyed. √ √ John how-ed Bill?John how-ed Bill?

8

Partition SemanticsPartition Semantics

Intuitively, a person who asks a Intuitively, a person who asks a question wants to be relieved from a question wants to be relieved from a state of ignorance with respect to a state of ignorance with respect to a certain piece of fact of the world, and certain piece of fact of the world, and they want to differentiate between all they want to differentiate between all the possibilities and try to figure out the possibilities and try to figure out which one is real.which one is real.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

9

Who went to the party?Who went to the party?

Set of individuals:Set of individuals:

{Adam, Bill, Chris, Dan}{Adam, Bill, Chris, Dan}

partition of the set of possible partition of the set of possible worldsworlds

16 cells, each of which 16 cells, each of which correspondscorresponds

to one possibilityto one possibility

w2, w18, … w27, w7,…

w56,… w92,…

w101, …

w73,…

w20, w42, w58,

…

16 cells altogether, I only drew 7 for

simplicity

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

λw λw’[λx .person(w0)(x) ∧ party’(w)(x) = λw λw’[λx .person(w0)(x) ∧ party’(w)(x) = party’(w’)(x)]party’(w’)(x)]

10

Proposition-set SemanticsProposition-set Semantics

The denotation of a question is the set of The denotation of a question is the set of

propositions that are possible answers.propositions that are possible answers.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

11

a.a. Who went to the party? Who went to the party?

b.b. { that Adam went to the party; { that Adam went to the party; that Bill went to the party; that Bill went to the party; that Chris went to the party; that Chris went to the party; that Dan went to the party. }that Dan went to the party. }

c. λpc. λp∃∃x [person’(w)(x) x [person’(w)(x) ∧∧ p = p = λλw’. w’. party’(w’)(x)]party’(w’)(x)]

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

12

An Event Semantics for the verbal HowWhat are good answers?

a. Yuehan da-le Bi’er. John hit-ed Bill John hit Bill.

b. Yuehan da-le Bi’er, ye ma-le Bi’er. John hit-ed Bill, also scold-ed Bi’er John hit Mary and also scolded Mary.How do we give the semantic representation of such sentences?

How do we characterize the verbs in these answers

13

Event SemanticsEvent SemanticsDavidson (1967) & Parsons (1990)Davidson (1967) & Parsons (1990)

Brutus Brutus stabbedstabbed Caesar violently. Caesar violently.

∃∃e [ e [ StabbingStabbing(e) ∧Agent(e, Brutus) ∧Patient(e, Caesar) (e) ∧Agent(e, Brutus) ∧Patient(e, Caesar) ∧∧Violent(e)Violent(e)]]

The main verb is treated as a property of events.The main verb is treated as a property of events.

14

Therefore:

a. {that John hit Bill, that John scolded Bill, ……} b. {p|∃P. [p=^∃e. [P(e) ∧Agent(e, John) ∧Patient (e, Bill)]]}

15

Compositional SemanticsCompositional SemanticsThe goal is to derive the semantics in a compositional way

Yuehan zenme-le Bi’er

{p|∃P. [p=^∃e. [P(e) ∧Agent(e, John) ∧Patient (e, Bill)]]}

Two Problems to Solve:Two Problems to Solve:

1.1.Derive the question semantics compositionallyDerive the question semantics compositionally

2.Derive the event semantics compositionally

16

Derivation of “who” questions Derivation of “who” questions (Lahiri 2002)(Lahiri 2002) CP

NP C’ C1 IP who ? t1 went-to-the-party

IP:IP: party’(w)(x1) party’(w)(x1)

CC11:: λpλq [ q = p] λpλq [ q = p]

C’:C’: λx1λq [ q = λw. party’(w)(x1)] λx1λq [ q = λw. party’(w)(x1)]

NP : NP : λQλp∃x [ person’(w)(x) ∧ Q(x)(p)] λQλp∃x [ person’(w)(x) ∧ Q(x)(p)]

CP :CP : λpλp∃∃x[ person’(w)(x) x[ person’(w)(x) ∧∧q = λw’. q = λw’. party’(w’)(x)] party’(w’)(x)]

17

So does the verbal how So does the verbal how move?move?

Wh-in-situ and movement in Mandarin:Wh-in-situ and movement in Mandarin:Wh-arguments: do not moveWh-arguments: do not moveWh-adjuncts: moveWh-adjuncts: move

Evidence: Island Escaping AbilityEvidence: Island Escaping Ability

Wh-arguments: yesWh-arguments: yes Wh-adjuncts: noWh-adjuncts: no

Thus: if the verbal how can escape islands, it Thus: if the verbal how can escape islands, it does not move.does not move.

18

a. Yuehan xihuan shei xie de shu?a. Yuehan xihuan shei xie de shu? John like who wrote DE bookJohn like who wrote DE book [who[whoi [John likes the book who [John likes the book whoi wrote]] wrote]] b.*Yuehan xihuan ni zenme xie de shub.*Yuehan xihuan ni zenme xie de shu John likes you how wrote DE bookJohn likes you how wrote DE book *[how [John likes the book that you wrote *[how [John likes the book that you wrote

how]]how]]

c. Yuehan xihuan Mali zenme-le de ren?c. Yuehan xihuan Mali zenme-le de ren? John like Mary how-ASP DEJohn like Mary how-ASP DE[1][1]

person.person. [how [John likes the person that Mary how-[how [John likes the person that Mary how-

ed]] ed]]

[1][1] DE is a structural morpheme in relative clause DE is a structural morpheme in relative clause constructions in Mandarin Chinese.constructions in Mandarin Chinese.

19

Thus the verbal how does not move, and shouldThus the verbal how does not move, and shouldbe bound by a default Q morpheme.be bound by a default Q morpheme.

[Q [ … how… ] ][Q [ … how… ] ]

Lahiri’s semantics only applies to:Lahiri’s semantics only applies to:

[NP[NPi ? [ …NP ? [ …NPi…]]…]]

We need a semantics for the Q morpheme here:We need a semantics for the Q morpheme here:

Berman’s (1994) rule for the Q morphemeBerman’s (1994) rule for the Q morpheme

〚〚 QφQφ 〛〛 M,g = {p: ∃(x1…xn) [p=M,g = {p: ∃(x1…xn) [p= 〚〚 QφQφ 〛〛 M,g’ ]}, ]}, where g’≈where g’≈φφ g. g.

domain restriction in-situdomain restriction in-situ

20

a.a. Who will be offended if we invite Who will be offended if we invite which philosopher?which philosopher?

b.b. for which <x, y>, if we invite y and for which <x, y>, if we invite y and y is a philosopher, then x will be y is a philosopher, then x will be offended.offended.

Reinhart (1998)Reinhart (1998)

domain restriction cannot be in-situ.domain restriction cannot be in-situ.

A problem for Berman’s rule:

21

My temporary solutionMy temporary solution Restricted variables xRestricted variables xDD

Variables that carry their domain restriction with them Variables that carry their domain restriction with them for abstraction by relevant rules.for abstraction by relevant rules.

Abstraction ruleAbstraction rule If α is a branching node, {β, γ} is the set of α’s If α is a branching node, {β, γ} is the set of α’s

daughters, β is an unselective binder Op, and γ contains daughters, β is an unselective binder Op, and γ contains a restricted variable xa restricted variable xDD, then, then

〚〚 αα 〛〛 = Op x such that x∊= Op x such that x∊DD.. 〚〚 γ(…x…)γ(…x…) 〛〛

Q Morpheme (Lahiri + Berman + abstraction)Q Morpheme (Lahiri + Berman + abstraction) 〚〚 QQ 〛〛 =λq.λp.∃x D.p=q, where q contains a restricted ∊=λq.λp.∃x D.p=q, where q contains a restricted ∊

variable variable xxDD

22

Now we move on to the second problem to see how we can derive the event semantics compositionally.

use Kratzer’s (1996) event-identification rule

23

VoiceP and Derivation (Kratzer 1996: 121)

a. Mittie feed the dog (untensed sentence) b. structure of (36a) VoiceP DP Voice’ Mittie Voice VP Agent DP V the dog feed

24

c. VoiceP: semantic interpretation [1] feed* = λxe λes [feed(x)(e)] [2] the dog* = the dog [3] (the dog feed) * = λes [feed(the dog)(e)] (From (1), (2) by Functional Application) [4] Agent* = λxe λes[Agent(x)(e)] [5] (Agent (the dog feed))* = λxe λes[Agent(x)(e) & feed(the dog)(e)] (From (3), (4) by Event Identification) [6] Mittie* = Mittie [7] ((Agent (the dog feed)) Mittie)* =λes[Agent(Mittie)(e) & feed(the dog)(e)] (From (5), (6) by Functional Application)

25

Event Identification (Kratzer 1996: 122)

f g h <e, <s, t>> <s, t> <e, <s, t>> λxe λes[f(x)(e) & g(e)]

26

The result of the untensed derivation in the previous two slides is a property of events, which can be (existentially) closed by aspect or tense, e.g. the Chinese –le. Lin (2004) provides an interpretation for the –le, which I will use here.

Now finally we have solved both problems and we are in a position to do the compositional

27

Compositional DerivationCompositional DerivationSample derivation of “Zhangsan zenme-le

Lisi?” CP

Q1 TP

DP T’

T AspP

F vP

-le VoiceP

Zhangsan Voice’

Agent VP

Lisi zenme f1

D<e,<s,wt>>

28

Compositional DerivationCompositional Derivation

Derivation stepsDerivation steps[3]

[1] 〚 zenme 〛 =λx. λe. λw. f1D<e,<s,wt>> (x)(e)(w).

[2] 〚 VP 〛 = λe. λw. f1D<e,<s,wt>> (Lisi)(e)(w)

[3] 〚 Agent 〛 = λx. λe. λw. Agent(x)(e)(w) [4] 〚 Voice’ 〛 = λx. λe. λw. [f1

D<e,<s,wt>> (Lisi)(e)(w) ∧Agent(x)(e)(w)] [5] 〚 VoiceP 〛 =λe.λw.[f1

D<e,<s,wt>>(Lisi)(e)(w)∧Agent(Zhangsan)(e)(w)] [6] 〚 -le 〛 = λt. λe. λw. [F(t)(e)(w)] [7] 〚 vP 〛 = λt. λe. λw. [f1

D<e,<s,wt>> (Lisi)(e)(w) ∧Agent(Zhangsan)(e)(w) ∧F(t)(e)(w)]

(continued on next slide)

[3] All of the type labels are the same as before. The variable w ranges over possible worlds. I also use the letter w as the type label for worlds, since the usual label s has already been used as that for events.

29

Compositional DerivationCompositional Derivation

[8] 〚 F 〛 = λt. λw. ∃e [F(t)(e)(w)]

[9] 〚 AspP 〛 = λt. λw. ∃e [f1D<e,<s,wt>> (Lisi)(e)(w)

∧Agent(Zhangsan)(e)(w) ∧F(t)(e)(w)]

[10] 〚 T 〛 = t0 (Speech Time)

[11] 〚 TP 〛 = λw. ∃e [f1D<e,<s,wt>> (Lisi)(e)(w)

∧Agent(Zhangsan)(e)(w) ∧F(t0)(e)(w)]

[12] 〚 Q1 〛 =λq. λp. ∃x such that x D. p=q∊

[13] 〚 CP 〛 = λp. [∃f such that f D<e, <s, ∊wt>>. p= λw. ∃e [f(Lisi)(e)(w)∧Agent(Zhangsan)(e)(w) ∧F(t0)(e)(w)]]

30

Notes:Rule of Event Closure (Lin 2004:629)[4] <i, t> + <i, <s,t>><i, t> Condition: F must matchthe aspect feature F introduces the time dimension as in F(t0)(e)(w), which says the event e precedes the speech time in world w.

in both Kratzer’s (1996) and Lin’s (2004) derivations, they only deal with the extension of a sentence, while in my derivation in order to derive the semantics of questions as sets of propositions, I have added the world variable all along.

[4] The label i stands for time instances/time intervals.

31

Explanation of the three Explanation of the three restrictionsrestrictions

Claim: the verbal “how” is uniformly used as a transitive verb, i.e. fD<e,<s,wt>>

〚 zenme〛=λx. λe. λw. fD<e,<s,wt>> (x)(e)(w).

32

Non-AgentivityNon-AgentivityZhangsan zenme-le?

CP

Q1 TP

DP T’

T AspP

F vP

-le VP

Zhangsan zenme f1

D<e,<s,wt>>

33

[1] 〚 zenme 〛 =λx. λe. λw. f1D<e,<s,wt>> (x)(e)(w).

[2] 〚 VP 〛 = λe. λw. f1D<e,<s,wt>> (Zhangsan)(e)(w)

[3] 〚 -le 〛 = λt. λe. λw. [F(t)(e)(w)] [4] 〚 vP 〛 = λt. λe. λw. [f1

D<e,<s,wt>> (Zhangsan)(e)(w) ∧F(t)(e)(w)] [5] 〚 F 〛 = λt. λw. ∃e [F(t)(e)(w)] [6] 〚 AspP 〛 = λt. λw. ∃e [f1

D<e,<s,wt>> (Zhangsan)(e)(w) ∧F(t)(e)(w)] [7] 〚 T 〛 = t0 (Speech Time) [8] 〚 TP 〛 = λw. ∃e [f1

D<e,<s,wt>> (Zhangsan)(e)(w) ∧ F(t0)(e)(w)] [9] 〚 Q1 〛 =λq. λp. ∃x such that x D. p=q∊

[10] 〚 CP 〛 = λp. [∃f such that f D<e, <s, wt>>. p= ∊λw. ∃e [ f(Zhangsan)(e)(w) ∧F(t0)(e)(w)]]

34

Non-TransitivityNon-Transitivity

〚 zenme 〛 =λx. λe. λw. f

D<e,<s,wt>> (x)(e)(w).

There is no position for a third argument.

For the zero-place use of “how”, the subject is dropped.

35

a. [ e zenme-le] b. Tree structure

CP

Q1 TP

e T’

T AspP

F vP

-le VP

e zenme f1

D<e,<s,wt>>

36

MalefactivityMalefactivity

It is a non-cancelable presupposition It is a non-cancelable presupposition of the constructionof the construction

Where is it triggered? Where is it triggered?

Sever the internal argument from the Sever the internal argument from the verb, as Lin’s (2004) paper does, and verb, as Lin’s (2004) paper does, and further distinguish different patient further distinguish different patient roles with the [affective] feature.roles with the [affective] feature.

37

VoicePVoiceP

Zhangsan voice’Zhangsan voice’

Agent vpAgent vp

Lisi v’Lisi v’

Patient VPatient V

[+aff] [+aff] zenmezenme

38

Choice Functions vs. Choice Functions vs. Structured VariableStructured Variable

The indefinite/wh-in-situ dilemma:The indefinite/wh-in-situ dilemma: a. Who will be offended if we invite which a. Who will be offended if we invite which

philosopher?philosopher?

b. for which <x, y>, if we invite y and y is a b. for which <x, y>, if we invite y and y is a philosopher, then x will be offended.philosopher, then x will be offended.

c. for which <x, y>, y is a philosopher, and if we c. for which <x, y>, y is a philosopher, and if we invite y, x will be offended.invite y, x will be offended.

Task: a) bind the variable non-locally; b)extract the Task: a) bind the variable non-locally; b)extract the domain restrictiondomain restriction

39

Choice Function (Reinhart 1998)Choice Function (Reinhart 1998)

For which <x, f>, (CH(f) For which <x, f>, (CH(f) ∧(we invite ∧(we invite f(philosopher) f(philosopher) x will be offended)).x will be offended)).

*Who arrived how?*Who arrived how?

40

Reinhart’s (1998) explanation:Reinhart’s (1998) explanation:

One thing that would be agreed upon in all One thing that would be agreed upon in all frameworks is that wh adverbials are different frameworks is that wh adverbials are different from wh-NPs. First, because they do not have an from wh-NPs. First, because they do not have an N-set, hence no N-role or variable; and second, N-set, hence no N-role or variable; and second, because they denote functions ranging over because they denote functions ranging over higher-order entities (Szabolcsi and Zwarts 1993). higher-order entities (Szabolcsi and Zwarts 1993). This entails that they cannot be interpreted via This entails that they cannot be interpreted via choice functions selecting an individual from a set choice functions selecting an individual from a set (since there is neither a variable that can be (since there is neither a variable that can be bound by forming a set nor a set of individuals bound by forming a set nor a set of individuals that the choice function could apply to).that the choice function could apply to).

————Reinhart (1998: 45)Reinhart (1998: 45)

41

1. Choice functions only apply to wh-in-1. Choice functions only apply to wh-in-situsitu

2. Choice functions do not apply to 2. Choice functions do not apply to higher-order entities.higher-order entities.

3. English “how” has to move and should 3. English “how” has to move and should be interpreted by other means.be interpreted by other means.

Could there be a “how-in-situ” Could there be a “how-in-situ” language?language?

42

Mandarin Chinese Mandarin Chinese ZenmeZenme “how” “how”

1.1. Adverbial “how” in Mandarin has to Adverbial “how” in Mandarin has to move, although wh-arguments do not move, although wh-arguments do not move.move.

This is a nice result of Reinhart’s theoryThis is a nice result of Reinhart’s theory

2. But the verbal “how” does not move. 2. But the verbal “how” does not move. Are they uninterpretable according to Are they uninterpretable according to Reinhart’s choice function theory?Reinhart’s choice function theory?

43

Interpretation dilemma (for wh-in-situ Interpretation dilemma (for wh-in-situ in Chinese):in Chinese):

Wh-argument: via choice functions;Wh-argument: via choice functions;

Wh-adjunct: probably via Lahiri’s Wh-adjunct: probably via Lahiri’s semantics for moved wh-elements;semantics for moved wh-elements;

Verbal-how: no interpretation?Verbal-how: no interpretation?

44

Structured Variable Structured Variable (Abusch 1994)(Abusch 1994)

General schema “φ: U”, where U is a General schema “φ: U”, where U is a set of indices of unquantified in-situ set of indices of unquantified in-situ indefinites.indefinites.

a. arrive(x1):{<x1, man(x1)>} a. arrive(x1):{<x1, man(x1)>} (indefinites)(indefinites)

b. arrive(x1):{ } (definites)b. arrive(x1):{ } (definites)

45

a A man arrived and a woman lefta A man arrived and a woman left

b. representation b. representation

< < x1,man(x1)>x1,man(x1)>

arrive(x1) arrive(x1) ∧ leave(x2) : < ∧ leave(x2) : < x2,woman(x2)>x2,woman(x2)>

arrive(x1) : {< x1,man(x1)>} leave(x2): {< arrive(x1) : {< x1,man(x1)>} leave(x2): {< x2,woman(x2)>}x2,woman(x2)>}

46

Existential Closure Rule: (Abusch 1994)Existential Closure Rule: (Abusch 1994)

Where <xWhere <xk1k1,φ,φ11 >,…,< x >,…,< xknkn,φ,φnn > ∈2(X’), the > ∈2(X’), the interpretation is: interpretation is:

∃∃xxk1k1…∃x…∃xknkn [φ [φ11∧…∧φ∧…∧φnn∧1(X’)] : [2(X’) – ∧1(X’)] : [2(X’) –

{<x{<xk1k1,φ,φ11>,…,< x>,…,< xknkn,φ,φnn > }] > }]

Note: 1(φ: U)= φ , 2(φ: U)=UNote: 1(φ: U)= φ , 2(φ: U)=U

47

The Chinese verbal “how” can be The Chinese verbal “how” can be interpreted by the Structured interpreted by the Structured Variable approach. (My abstraction Variable approach. (My abstraction rule can be considered an extension rule can be considered an extension of this approach to questions)of this approach to questions)

But this approach does not deal with But this approach does not deal with the how-in-situ in Englishthe how-in-situ in English

48

A final comparisonA final comparisonIf we take these assumptions:If we take these assumptions:1.1. The problem with in-situ “how” in English is The problem with in-situ “how” in English is

semantic;semantic;2.2. The semantic interpretation mechanisms are The semantic interpretation mechanisms are

meant to be applicable to different langauges.meant to be applicable to different langauges.

Then we have the following pros and cons:Then we have the following pros and cons:1.1. The verbal “how” is a problem for the Choice The verbal “how” is a problem for the Choice

Function approach, but not for the Structured Function approach, but not for the Structured Variable.Variable.

2.2. The in-situ “how” in English is still to be The in-situ “how” in English is still to be explained, if we adopt the structured variable explained, if we adopt the structured variable approach for all wh-in-situ.approach for all wh-in-situ.

49

A different explanation?A different explanation?

If the problem of the English in-situ If the problem of the English in-situ “how” is syntactic (Diesing 1993):“how” is syntactic (Diesing 1993):

There is no reason why choice There is no reason why choice functions cannot be applied to sets functions cannot be applied to sets of higher-order entities.of higher-order entities.

The two approaches have equal The two approaches have equal interpretive power.interpretive power.

50

A Broader PictureA Broader Picture

Adverbial “how”:Adverbial “how”:

How did John dance?How did John dance?

John danced beautifully.John danced beautifully.

∃∃e [ Dancing(e) ∧Agent(e, John) e [ Dancing(e) ∧Agent(e, John) ∧Beautiful(e)]∧Beautiful(e)]

51

““How” as properties of How” as properties of eventsevents

Both the adverbial how and the verbal Both the adverbial how and the verbal how range over properties of events.how range over properties of events.

Adverbial how: manner properties?Adverbial how: manner properties?

Verbal how: type of events?Verbal how: type of events?

52

Structure of MannersStructure of Manners

Szabolcsi, A and Zwarts, F. 1993. Szabolcsi, A and Zwarts, F. 1993.

Manners range over domains of free join Manners range over domains of free join semi-lattice structure.semi-lattice structure.

““How” as properties of events:How” as properties of events:

{e1, e2, e3, e4, …}{e1, e2, e3, e4, …}

Is there a way of structuring the set of Is there a way of structuring the set of events, or the set of sets of events?events, or the set of sets of events?

53

Remaining IssuesRemaining Issues

Q. Yuehan zenme-le?Q. Yuehan zenme-le? John how-ed?John how-ed? What happened to John?What happened to John?

A: He tripped over a rock.A: He tripped over a rock.

Indirect answer?Indirect answer? “ “Zenme” is not limited to a transitive Zenme” is not limited to a transitive

verb?verb?

54

““What” QuestionsWhat” Questions

What did John do to Bill?What did John do to Bill? Yuehan zenme-le Bi’er.Yuehan zenme-le Bi’er.

Similar to the verbal “how” Similar to the verbal “how” questions?questions?

55

Any other languages?Any other languages?

Is this type of verbal how questions Is this type of verbal how questions available in other typologically related available in other typologically related languages?languages?

Wh-in-situ (Is this type of questions Wh-in-situ (Is this type of questions imaginable in English?)imaginable in English?)

Separate aspect morphemes (e.g. –le Separate aspect morphemes (e.g. –le in Mandarin)in Mandarin)

56

ConclusionsConclusions The verbal how ranges over properties of The verbal how ranges over properties of

events. It is uniformly used as a transitive events. It is uniformly used as a transitive verb.verb.

The requirement for the “how” to move in The requirement for the “how” to move in some environment but not in others poses a some environment but not in others poses a problem for the choice function approach to problem for the choice function approach to wh-in-situ, but this fact supports the wh-in-situ, but this fact supports the structured variable approach.structured variable approach.

Both the verbal “how” and the adverbial Both the verbal “how” and the adverbial “how” range over properties of events“how” range over properties of events

57

Thank You!Thank You!

58

Essential ReferencesEssential References

Abusch, Dorit. 1994. The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 2:83-135. Kluwer.

Baker, C.L. 1970. “Notes on the description of English questions: the role of an abstract question morpheme,” Foundations of Language 6: 197-219.

Berman, S. 1994. On the Semantics of Wh-Clauses. Garland, New York and London.

Davidson, Donald. 1967. The Logical Form of Action Sentences. In N. Rescher (ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action, 81-95. University of Pittsburgh Press.

Diesing, Molly. 1993. “Multiple Multiple Questions”, in Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley and Mary Willie (eds.) Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar, John Benjamins, 135-153.

Hamblin, C. L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10:41-53.

Heim, Irene. 1988. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. New York: Garland.Higginbotham, James, and Fabio Pianesi, Achille C. Varzi. (eds) 2000. Speaking of Events. Oxford University Press.

Huang, James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

59

Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and Semantics of Questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1:3-44. Reprinted in Portner, Paul and Partee, Barbara H. (eds) (2002).

Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb, in Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie (eds) Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Kluwer.

Lahiri, Utpal. 2002. Questions and Answers in Embedded Contexts. Oxford University Press.

Lin, Tzong-Hong Jonah. 2004. Aspect, Distributivity, and Wh/QP Interaction in Chinese. Language and Linguistics 5.3:615-642. Taipei, China

Lewis, David. 1975. Adverbs of Quantification. In E. Keenan (ed.) Formal Semantics of Natural Lanuage, 3-15, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

McCloskey, James. 2000. Quantifier Float and Wh-Movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 57-85

Parsons, T. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Reinhart, Tanya. 1998. Wh-in-situ in the Framework of the MiniBi’erst Program. Natural Language Semantics 6: 29-56.

60

Reis, Marga. 1992. The category of invatiant alles in wh-clauses: On syntactic quantifiers

vs. quantifying particles in German. In Who climbs the grammar tree?,ed. Rosemarie

Trace. 465-492. Tuebingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Shimoyama, J. 2006. Indeterminate Phrase Quantification in Japanese. NaturalLanguage

Semantics, 14:139-173.

Szabolcsi, A and Zwarts, F. 1993. Weak Islands and an Algebraic Semantics for Scope

Taking. Natural Language Semanics.

Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 1999. On Economizing the Theory of A-BarDependencies. Garland

Publishing, Inc.

Xu, Liejiong. 1986. Free empty category. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 75-93.