A comp mpositional ositional analysis analysis of ap ap and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References A comp mpositional ositional analysis analysis of ap ap and verbal and verbal predicates redicates in in Haitian Haitian Cre Creole ole Formal Approaches to Creole Linguistics
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References
bridget.copley@sfl.cnrs.fr SFL (CNRS/Paris 8)
Formal Approaches to Creole Linguistics 4 Paris, 6-7 November 2014
1/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Factativity ap
2/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Factativity ap
(1) a. V` edye V` edye bati build yon house kay. ‘V` edye built a house.’ b. Jan Jan kouri run pandan pendant de two z` e hour tan. time ‘Jan ran for two hours.’ c. Mari Mari k`
en know Jan. Jan ‘Mari knows Jan.’
“Factativity” (Welmers and Welmers, 1968): bare eventives are interpreted in the past while bare statives are interpreted in the present (more complicated than that, of course, but it will do for a starting point).
HC examples from Dechaine (1991), Lefebvre (1996); also (and thanks for discussion to) Herby Glaude, Renauld Govain. Thanks too to students at l’Universit´ e d’Etat d’Ha¨ ıti and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr. 3/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Factativity ap
ap(r)(e) < Fr. apr` es (Damoiseau, 1994; Lefebvre, 1996)
(2) a. V` edye V` edye ap ap bati build yon house kay. ‘V` edye is building a house.’ b. Jan Jan ap ap kouri. kouri ‘Jan is running.’ c. Mari Mari ap ap k`
en know Jan. Jan ‘Mari will know Jan.’
(Lefebvre (1996) 12)
(3) Mari (a-)(v)a malad. Mari fut malade ‘Mari will be sick’
(Lefebvre (1996): 13)
Spears (1990); Lefebvre (1996): The future with ap is definite/near/certain future, (a)-(v)a is indefinite/not near/not as certain.
4/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Factativity ap
◮ Spears 1990, Lefebvre 1996: Progressive ap and future ap are two
different lexical items.
◮ Dechaine 1991: If so, then it must additionally be explained why
progressive ap takes only eventives while future ap takes only statives.
◮ Also, if there are two versions of ap, the similar temporal
“d´ ecalage”/“compensation” (Damoiseau 1994) between eventives and statives is explained one way for non-ap sentences and a different way for ap sentences.
◮ Still needed: morphosyntactic evidence as to whether there are two
different syntactic positions for ap with eventives or statives. Better: a unitary analysis of ap
5/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Factativity ap
(4) hypothesis 1: [ [ap] ] = progressive, “bare” eventives have a null perfective morpheme ⇒ [ [ap + stative] ] = progressive stative X [ [ap + eventive] ] = progressive eventive
6/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Factativity ap
(4) hypothesis 1: [ [ap] ] = progressive, “bare” eventives have a null perfective morpheme ⇒ [ [ap + stative] ] = progressive stative X [ [ap + eventive] ] = progressive eventive (5) hypothesis 2: [ [ap] ] = future, “bare” eventives have a null perfective morpheme ⇒ [ [ap + stative] ] = future stative [ [ap + eventive] ] = future eventive X
6/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Factativity ap
(4) hypothesis 1: [ [ap] ] = progressive, “bare” eventives have a null perfective morpheme ⇒ [ [ap + stative] ] = progressive stative X [ [ap + eventive] ] = progressive eventive (5) hypothesis 2: [ [ap] ] = future, “bare” eventives have a null perfective morpheme ⇒ [ [ap + stative] ] = future stative [ [ap + eventive] ] = future eventive X (6) hypothesis 3: [ [ap] ] = progressive, eventives are inherently perfective ⇒ [ [ap + stative] ] = progressive stative X [ [ap + eventive] ] = progressive perfective X
6/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Factativity ap
(4) hypothesis 1: [ [ap] ] = progressive, “bare” eventives have a null perfective morpheme ⇒ [ [ap + stative] ] = progressive stative X [ [ap + eventive] ] = progressive eventive (5) hypothesis 2: [ [ap] ] = future, “bare” eventives have a null perfective morpheme ⇒ [ [ap + stative] ] = future stative [ [ap + eventive] ] = future eventive X (6) hypothesis 3: [ [ap] ] = progressive, eventives are inherently perfective ⇒ [ [ap + stative] ] = progressive stative X [ [ap + eventive] ] = progressive perfective X (7) hypothesis 4: [ [ap] ] = future, eventives are inherently perfective ⇒ [ [ap + stative] ] = future stative [ [ap + eventive] ] = future + perfective X
6/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Situation sequences An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms
7/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Situation sequences An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms
Proposal: change the semantic model so that we can take advantage of the eventive-stative d´ ecalage of the factative effect to explain ap. The basic meanings will be roughly as in hypothesis 4 in that ([ [ap] ] = “future”, eventives are inherently “perfective”) but “future” and “perfective” will be modeled completely differently from usual. We will introduce the idea of a situation sequence which will allow us to construct appropriate logical forms for factative verbal predicates and ap. Much will depend on how these situation sequences are intepreted in the conceptual system.
8/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Situation sequences An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms
Situations are taken to be representations of individuals and their property attributions in a particular slice of space-time. We define a sequence of situation arguments with index n = . . . -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 . . . to represent the sequence of situations in the world that we are talking about: (8) . . ., (s−2), (s−1), s0, (s1), (s2), . . . (9) s−1 s0 s1 s2 We also define pred(ecessor) and suc(cessor) functions for any sn: (10) a. pred(sn) = sn−1 b. suc(sn) = sn+1
9/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Situation sequences An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms
(11) a.
Stative predicates: [ [Mari k`
en Jan] ](s) = 1 iff Mari-know-Jan(s)
b.
Eventive predicates: [ [V` edye bati yon kay] ](s) = 1 iff V` edye-build-a-house(pred(s))
(the predicate V` edye bati yon kay = the property V` edye-build-a-house!)
Let → designate an event and • designate a state. (12)
[Mari k`
en Jan]
](s0)
[V`
edye bati yon kay]
](s0)
[Jan kouri] ](s0) Mari-know-Jan
s0 s−1 s0
V` edye-build-a-house
s−1 s0
Jan-run
10/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Situation sequences An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms
(13) [ [ap] ] = λp λs . p(suc(s)) (14)
[Mari ap k`
en Jan]
](s0)
[V`
edye ap bati yon kay]
](s0)
[Jan ap kouri] ](s0)
Mari-know-Jan
s0 s1 s0 s1
V` edye-build-a-house
s0
Jan-run
11/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Situation sequences An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms
So far this is only a partial analysis because the denotations given here
as:
◮ Perfective/resultative, n = -1: Why is the result state in bare
eventives still ongoing at the utterance time? (15) Mwen p` edi lin` et mwen. I lose glasses my ‘I lost my glasses (and they’re still lost).’
◮ Progressive/stative, n = 0:
Why is there a progressive reading when n = 0 for eventives, but a regular stative reading when n = 0 for statives?
◮ Near future stative, n = 1: Can we explain what it means to be a
“near future” of this kind? Need: conceptual interpretation of these sequences.
12/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Situation sequences An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms
Claim: situation sequences are interpreted as causal chains in a particular fashion. (16) a. Situation sequences interpreted as causal chains: For all n, sn is a directly causing situation to sn+1 b. Historical necessity: Nothing intervenes from s−1 to s0 c. Open future: Something may intervene from s0 to s1 d. Localized closed world assumption: The speaker makes the assumption that they have represented everything relevant in their model of the world, though this assumption is defeasible.
13/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Situation sequences An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms
Why does the result state still hold at the time of utterance?
◮ The fact that the result still holds at s0 follows from:
◮ Eventive predicates: The event occurs in s−1 ◮ Situation sequences interpreted as causal chains: s−1 directly causes
s0
◮ Historical necessity: Nothing intervenes from s−1 to s0
◮ Shows us why situations are needed: “what led to the current
situation” rather than“the previous event”
◮ Similar spirit to recent pragmatic theories of the perfect: Nishiyama
& Koenig 2004 e.g.
14/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Situation sequences An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms
Why is there a progressive reading when n = 0 for eventives, but a regular stative reading when n = 0 for statives?
◮ Reminiscent of the French imparfait ◮ Would follow from:
◮ A way to relate events to the situation they are in, so that sequences
are only about situations
◮ Situation sequences interpreted as causal chains ◮ Open future ◮ Localized closed world assumption ◮ . . . ? A more complete (and more radical) answer is given in Copley & Harley 2014a, 2014b. 15/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Situation sequences An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms
Futurates: Vetter (1973); Huddleston (1977); Dowty (1979), Copley (2002/2009a, 2008, 2009b, 2014), , Kaufmann 2005, a.o. (17) a. I make the coffee tomorrow.
(18) a. John is ready at 9am tomorrow.
(19) a. I will make coffee/get sick tomorrow. b. John will be ready/sick at 9am tomorrow.
16/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Situation sequences An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms
Copley (2014): futurates involve a direct causal chain, constructed in the syntax
◮ Animate director, not necessarily the subject, has ability to directly
cause the described eventuality
◮ Speaker presupposes that director has this ability (i.e., eventuality
will happen) though of course it might not turn out that way
◮ No particular morphology apart from imperfective ◮ Mismatch between present tense location of eventuality and future
adverbial triggers addition of additional vP, resolving the mismatch by introducing a Pro agent (director) and a causing eventuality
◮ Only way to understand added causing eventuality is as the intention
between causing and caused eventuality
◮ Open future, Localized closed world assumption
17/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Situation sequences An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms
(20)
vP2 s,t
λs. director(Pro, s) & ∃e: [[ [vP1] ]c (e) & s Cause e]
Pro x vP2 e, s,t
λxλs . director(x, s) & ∃e: [[ [vP2] ]c (e) & s Cause e]
v s,t, e, s,t
λpλxλe . director(x, s) & ∃e: [[ [vP1] ]c (e) & s Cause e]
vP1 s,t
λe . [ [I make the coffee] ]c (e) & [ [tomorrow] ]c (e)
I make the coffee tomorrow λxλs . director(x, s) & ∃e: [[ [I make the coffee] ]c(e) & [ [tomorrow] ]c(e) & s Cause e]
18/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Situation sequences An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms
(21) a. Elif` et Elif` et ap ap pare ready nan at 9 9 ` e
demen. tomorrow ‘Elif` et is ready at 9 o’clock tomorrow.’
et Elif` et ap ap malade sick nan at 9 9 ` e
demen. tomorrow ‘Elif` et is sick at 9 o’clock tomorrow.’ Renauld Govain, p.c.: “l’´ etat d’ˆ etre malade dans le futur n’est gu` ere pr´
dans le futur. Mais la phrase [(21a)] est parfaitement grammaticale.” Other speakers: reject nan for (20b), substituting vers Future or futurate?
19/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Situation sequences An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms
ap + stative as futurate follows from:
◮ Copley (2014) ◮ Sequences interpreted as causal chains ◮ Open future ◮ Localized closed world assumption
20/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Situation sequences An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms
Eventives can have future-oriented readings too, and only with ap: (22)
et Elif` et jwe play foutb`
football demen. tomorrow ‘Elif` et plays football tomorrow.’ b. Elif` et Elif` et ap ap jwe play foutb`
football demen. tomorrow ‘Elif` et plays/is playing football tomorrow.’ Future or futurate?
21/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Situation sequences An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms
◮ A situation sequence view of verbal predicates and ap seems to get
the temporal shift between eventive and stative predicates appropriately.
◮ It suggests that much of the associated meaning should be explained
by the interpretation of these sequences.
◮ I’ve argued that interpreting these situation sequences as causal
chains is very likely to be fruitful.
22/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Situation sequences An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms
Definiteness and generic/habitual reading: “cotemporal results” (23) a. Py` e Py` e van sell b` ef. cattle ‘Py` e sells/*sold cattle’ b. Py` e Py` e van sell b` ef cattle yo. det ‘Py` e *sells/sold the cattle.’
(D´ echaine 1991: 37) 23/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References Situation sequences An analysis of factativity and ap at the level of logical form Filling in the interpretations of the logical forms
Causative/inchoative alternation (24) a. Timoun child nan det kraze break v` e glass a. det ‘The child broke the glass.’ b. V` e glass a det kraze. break ‘The glass is broken.’
(D´ echaine 1991: 36)
(25) a. Timoun child nan det ap ap kraze break v` e glass a. det ‘The child is breaking the glass.’ b. V` e glass a det ap ap kraze. break ‘The glass will break.’
(D´ echaine 1991: 36) 24/25
Factativity and ap in Haitian Creole Proposal References
Copley, B. (2008). The plan’s the thing: Deconstructing futurate meaning. Linguistic Inquiry 39(2), 261–274. Copley, B. (2009). Temporal orientation in conditionals. In J. Gu´ eron and J. Lecarme (Eds.), Time and Modality, pp. 59–77. Springer. Copley, B. (2014). Causal chains for futurates. In P. de Brabanter, M. Kissine, and S. Sharifzadeh (Eds.), Future Times, Future Tenses, Oxford Studies of Time in Language and Thought, pp. 72–86. OUP. Copley, B. and H. Harley (2014a). A force-theoretic framework for event semantics (to appear in linguistics and philosophy). CNRS/Paris 8 and University of Arizona ms. Copley, B. and H. Harley (2014b). A force-theoretic model. CNRS/Paris 8 and University of Arizona ms. Damoiseau, R. (1994). R´ eflexions sur le fonctionnement du syst` eme aspecto-temporel du cr´ eole ha¨ ıtien. La linguistique, 105–120. Dechaine, R. (1991). Bare sentences. In SALT I, Ithaca. Cornell University. Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Huddleston, R. (1977). The futurate construction. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 730–736. Lefebvre, C. (1996). The tense, mood, and aspect system of Haitian Creole and the problem of transmission of grammar in creole genesis. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 11(2), 231–311. Nishiyama, A. and J.-P. Koenig (2004). What is a perfect state? In WCCFL, pp. 595–606. Spears, A. (1990). Tense, mood, and aspect in the Hatian Creole preverbal marker. In Pidgin and Creole Tense-Mood-Aspect Systems. John Benjamins. Vetter, D. C. (1973). Someone solves this problem tomorrow. Linguistic Inquiry 4:1, 104–108. Welmers, B. F. and W. Welmers (1968). Igbo: A Learner’s Manual. UCLA. 25/25