Comments on Jakub Dotlails presentation, Dynamic properties of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
comments on jakub dotla il s presentation dynamic
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Comments on Jakub Dotlails presentation, Dynamic properties of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mar 02, 2024 20 likes •216 views

Comments on Jakub Dotlails presentation, Dynamic properties of question words Matthew Gotham University of Oslo and Centre for Advanced Study PALLMYR-XI, UCL, 10 November 2017 Matthew Gotham (Oslo and CAS) Comments on Dotlail

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Comments on Jakub Dotlačil’s presentation, ‘Dynamic properties of question words’

Matthew Gotham

University of Oslo and Centre for Advanced Study

PALLMYR-XI, UCL, 10 November 2017

Matthew Gotham (Oslo and CAS) Comments on Dotlačil PALLMYR-XI, UCL, 10.11.2017 1 / 9

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Making ICDRT

Inquisitive semantics Who is walking? for questions

Matthew Gotham (Oslo and CAS) Comments on Dotlačil PALLMYR-XI, UCL, 10.11.2017 2 / 9

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Making ICDRT

Inquisitive semantics Who is walking? for questions + CDRT Someone1 is walking. He1 is singing. for anaphora

Matthew Gotham (Oslo and CAS) Comments on Dotlačil PALLMYR-XI, UCL, 10.11.2017 2 / 9

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Making ICDRT

Inquisitive semantics Who is walking? for questions + CDRT Someone1 is walking. He1 is singing. for anaphora = ICDRT Who1 is walking? Is he1 singing? for anaphora to wh-words

Matthew Gotham (Oslo and CAS) Comments on Dotlačil PALLMYR-XI, UCL, 10.11.2017 2 / 9

slide-5
SLIDE 5

‘Someone is walking’

standard static a proposition λws.∃xe.walk(x, w)

  • inquisitive

a set of propositions λpst.∃xe.p ⊆ (λws.walk(x, w))

  • CDRT

a state–state relation λic.λoc.i[x1]o ∧ walk(x1(o))

  • ICDRT

a proposition–state–state relation λpst.λic.λoc.i[x1]o ∧ p ⊆ (λws.walk(x1(o), w))

Matthew Gotham (Oslo and CAS) Comments on Dotlačil PALLMYR-XI, UCL, 10.11.2017 3 / 9

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Anaphora to wh-words

Why does it work?

Matthew Gotham (Oslo and CAS) Comments on Dotlačil PALLMYR-XI, UCL, 10.11.2017 4 / 9

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Anaphora to wh-words

Why does it work?

Basically, because in ICDRT wh-words words are treated the same as indefinites, semantically.*

Matthew Gotham (Oslo and CAS) Comments on Dotlačil PALLMYR-XI, UCL, 10.11.2017 4 / 9

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Anaphora to wh-words

Why does it work?

Basically, because in ICDRT wh-words words are treated the same as indefinites, semantically.* Someone1 is walking. You know him1. = Who1 is walking? You know him1. = λpst.λic.λoc.i[x1]o ∧ p ⊆ (λws.walk(x1(o))) ∧ p ⊆ (λws.know(you, x1(o), w)) *To be qualified.

Matthew Gotham (Oslo and CAS) Comments on Dotlačil PALLMYR-XI, UCL, 10.11.2017 4 / 9

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Why can’t non-inquisitive semantics just do the same thing?

I.e., treat constituent questions just like existential statements

Matthew Gotham (Oslo and CAS) Comments on Dotlačil PALLMYR-XI, UCL, 10.11.2017 5 / 9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Why can’t non-inquisitive semantics just do the same thing?

I.e., treat constituent questions just like existential statements

It’s a distinctive feature of inquisitive semantics that statements and quesitons have the same semantic type.

Matthew Gotham (Oslo and CAS) Comments on Dotlačil PALLMYR-XI, UCL, 10.11.2017 5 / 9

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Why can’t non-inquisitive semantics just do the same thing?

I.e., treat constituent questions just like existential statements

It’s a distinctive feature of inquisitive semantics that statements and quesitons have the same semantic type. To adapt a non-inquisitive system to treat indefinites and wh-words the same, you would have to either

raise statements to the type of questions ...in which case you would have an inquisitive system, or

Matthew Gotham (Oslo and CAS) Comments on Dotlačil PALLMYR-XI, UCL, 10.11.2017 5 / 9

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Why can’t non-inquisitive semantics just do the same thing?

I.e., treat constituent questions just like existential statements

It’s a distinctive feature of inquisitive semantics that statements and quesitons have the same semantic type. To adapt a non-inquisitive system to treat indefinites and wh-words the same, you would have to either

raise statements to the type of questions ...in which case you would have an inquisitive system, or lower questions to the type of statements ...in which case you the treatment of questions would be inadequate.

Matthew Gotham (Oslo and CAS) Comments on Dotlačil PALLMYR-XI, UCL, 10.11.2017 5 / 9

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Why can’t non-inquisitive semantics just do the same thing?

I.e., treat constituent questions just like existential statements

It’s a distinctive feature of inquisitive semantics that statements and quesitons have the same semantic type. To adapt a non-inquisitive system to treat indefinites and wh-words the same, you would have to either

raise statements to the type of questions ...in which case you would have an inquisitive system, or lower questions to the type of statements ...in which case you the treatment of questions would be inadequate.

Inquisitive semantics gives you the notion of answers to the question (resolutions to the issue).

pst resolves φ(st)t ⇔ φ(p) E.g. (λws.walk(john, w)) resolves (λpst.∃xe.p ⊆ (λws.walk(x, w)))

Matthew Gotham (Oslo and CAS) Comments on Dotlačil PALLMYR-XI, UCL, 10.11.2017 5 / 9

slide-14
SLIDE 14

But still...

There has to be some semantic difference between indefinites and wh-words.

(I know someone’s walking vs. I know who’s walking.)

Matthew Gotham (Oslo and CAS) Comments on Dotlačil PALLMYR-XI, UCL, 10.11.2017 6 / 9

slide-15
SLIDE 15

But still...

There has to be some semantic difference between indefinites and wh-words.

(I know someone’s walking vs. I know who’s walking.)

Proposal (from ms. Jakub sent me): unlike Someone is walking., Who is walking? presupposes that someone is walking.

Q # Who is walking? A # Someone.

Matthew Gotham (Oslo and CAS) Comments on Dotlačil PALLMYR-XI, UCL, 10.11.2017 6 / 9

slide-16
SLIDE 16

But still...

There has to be some semantic difference between indefinites and wh-words.

(I know someone’s walking vs. I know who’s walking.)

Proposal (from ms. Jakub sent me): unlike Someone is walking., Who is walking? presupposes that someone is walking.

Q # Who is walking? A # Someone.

As far as I know, this proposal hasn’t been formalized.

Matthew Gotham (Oslo and CAS) Comments on Dotlačil PALLMYR-XI, UCL, 10.11.2017 6 / 9

slide-17
SLIDE 17

A suggestion

‘Someone is walking’

standard static a proposition λws.∃xe.walk(x, w)

  • inquisitive

a set of propositions λpst.∃xe.p ⊆ (λws.walk(x, w))

  • CDRT

a state–state relation λic.λoc.i[x1]o ∧ walk(x1(o))

  • var-ICDRT

a proposition–proposition–state–state relation λpst.λqst.λic.λoc.i[x1]o ∧ q ⊆ p ∩ (λws.walk(x1(o), w))

Matthew Gotham (Oslo and CAS) Comments on Dotlačil PALLMYR-XI, UCL, 10.11.2017 7 / 9

slide-18
SLIDE 18

The constrast

in a trivalent semantics

Someone1 is walking. λpst.λqst.λic.λoc.i[x1]o ∧ q ⊆

  • p ∩ λws.walk(x1(o), w)
  • Who1 is walking?

λpst.λqst.λic.λoc.i[x1]o ∧ q ⊆

  • p ∩ λws.walk(x1(o), w)
  • ∧ ∂
  • p ⊆ λws.∃xe.walk(x, w)
  • Matthew Gotham (Oslo and CAS)

Comments on Dotlačil PALLMYR-XI, UCL, 10.11.2017 8 / 9

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Definitions

These haven’t been properly checked yet...

pst supports Φ(st)(st)cct ⇔ ∀ic.∃oc.Φ(λws.⊤)(p)(i)(o) walks λdce.λpst.λqst.λic.λoc.i = o ∧ q ⊆

  • p ∩ λws.walk(d(o), w)
  • someonen

λP.λpst.λqst.λic.λoc.∃kc.i[xn]k ∧ P(xn)(p)(q)(k)(o) whon λP.λpst.λqst.λic.λoc.∃kc.i[xn]k ∧ P(xn)(p)(q)(k)(o) ∧ ∂

  • p supports

λrst.λsst.λjc.λlc.∃xe.P(λmc.x)(r)(s)(j)(l)

  • Where P :: (ce)(st)(st)cct

Matthew Gotham (Oslo and CAS) Comments on Dotlačil PALLMYR-XI, UCL, 10.11.2017 9 / 9