particles disjunctions and inquisitivity in avar
play

Particles, disjunctions and inquisitivity in Avar TABU Dag 37 | 3rd - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Particles, disjunctions and inquisitivity in Avar TABU Dag 37 | 3rd June 2016 Pavel Rudnev, University of Groningen ( p.rudnev@rug.nl ) Introduction Research programme on logical constants Tradition Recent developments Mitrovi 2014;


  1. Particles, disjunctions and inquisitivity in Avar TABU Dag 37 | 3rd June 2016 Pavel Rudnev, University of Groningen ( p.rudnev@rug.nl )

  2. Introduction Research programme on logical constants Tradition Recent developments Mitrović 2014; Mitrović 2015, a.o.) a.k.a. superparticles (Mitrović) ▶ logical tradition: conjunction and disjunction treated on a par ▶ ditto for the syntax of conjunction and disjunction ▶ conjunction is more basic than disjunction (Szabolcsi 2015; ▶ all action is performed by quantifjer particles (Szabolcsi 2015),

  3. Superparticles µ /MO ▶ alternative activation ▶ obligatory (possibly recursive) exhaustifjcation ▶ ⟦ µ ⟧ = λp [ X R ( p )] ⊢ λp [ p ∧ ¬ X ( p )] ▶ X R is an exhaustifjcation operator (cf. Chierchia 2013) κ /KA ▶ non-tautological disjunction addition ▶ ⟦ κ ⟧ = λp [ p ∨ ¬ p ]

  4. Why these particles? conjunction (Mitrović and Sauerland 2014) =nigi marking: two empirical claims obligatorily strong/exclusive (Mitrović 2015) ▶ crosslinguistic argument ▶ Avar forms the core of the argument for both the structure of ▶ and the analysis of exclusive disjunction (Mitrović 2015) ▶ complex disjunction markers containing an additive particle are ▶ =nigi -marked pronouns are negative (Alekseev and Ataev 1997 a.o.)

  5. Aims for today ▶ show both claims to be false ▶ sketch a path towards dispelling the confusion

  6. Additivity, exhaustifjcation and XOR disjunction, where J is Den Dikken’s (2006) Junction head: (1) JP NPI/additive NPI/additive coordination ▶ Mitrović (2015) proposes the following structure for exclusive ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� [ µ P µ 0 XP ] ][ J 0 [ κ P κ 0 [ [ κ P κ 0 [ µ P µ 0 YP ] ]]] �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ▶ how does (1) give rise to exclusive disjunction?

  7. Conjunction and disjunction in Avar Avar: key facts ▶ Northeast Caucasian ▶ over 700,000 speakers ▶ morphologically ergative, largely agglutinative ▶ extensive pro- drop ▶ extensive use of multifunctional particles (cf. Forker 2013)

  8. Avar conjunction XP=gi YP=gi (Uslar 1889: p. 241) (2) wac=gi, brother=GI jac=gi, sister=GI emen=gi, father=GI ebel=gi mother=GI ana go.pst xurire fjeld ‘Brother and sister and father and mother went to the fjeld.’

  9. Avar disjunction strategies (Uslar 1889: p. 241) (5) sister.erg hab-ila do.n-fut heb that ‘Either brother or sister will do it.’ wacas=nigi (3) brother.erg=NIGI jacał=nigi sister.erg=NIGI hab-ila do.n-fut heb that jacał ja=gi brother.erg sister.erg ja wacas brother.erg ja jacał hab-ila do.n-fut heb that (4) ja=gi wacas ‘Either brother or sister will do it.’ κ κ κ = µ κ = µ

  10. jagi disjunction is exclusive ‘Either brother won’t do it or sister won’t do it.’ best seen in their interaction with sentential negation. (6) ja=gi wacas brother.erg ja=gi Tie interpretational difgerences between the three disjunction types are jacał sister.erg habila-ro will.do-neg heb that.abs κ = µ κ = µ ▶ predicted by Mitrović (2015)

  11. =nigi disjunction isn’t exclusive Both the =ni=gi and the ja strategies display proper De Morganic ‘Neither brother nor sister will do it.’ that.abs heb will.do-neg habila-ro jacał=ni=gi b. wacas=ni=gi that.abs heb will.do-neg habila-ro sister.erg jacał ja brother.erg wacas a. ja (7) interpreted as a conjunction of negations (7). readings when embedded under negation, being obligatorily κ κ brother.erg=?= µ sister.erg=?= µ ▶ not predicted by Mitrović (2015)

  12. Is ni actually a κ -particle? ▶ no robust diagnostics of κ -hood ▶ rule of thumb: wherever there are alternatives, κ s must be at play ▶ if that’s right, then ni is defjnitely a κ -particle

  13. Yes ▶ then Mitrović is wrong: ▶ =nigi disjunction is clearly discontinuous ▶ =nigi disjunction contains the additive particle =gi

  14. No (8) JP NPI/additive NPI/additive coordination triggered by =nigi ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� [ µ P µ 0 XP ] ][ J 0 [ κ P κ 0 [ [ κ P κ 0 [ µ P µ 0 YP ] ]]] �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ▶ then something else is responsible for the disjunction-like reading

  15. =nigi marking: other uses ▶ polarity marking ▶ concessives/unconditionals ▶ free choice

  16. =nigi marking: other uses Polarity (9) ask’osa ‘ebede nearby šiw=nigi who=NIGI w–uk’-in-č’o m–be-msd-neg ‘Tiere was no one around.’ ▶ Chierchia: FC efgects obtain from X ( p ) under ¬

  17. =nigi marking: other uses Concessives/unconditionals ‘Wherever she goes, I will never leave her.’ leave.fut-neg tola-ro. she.abs hej ever kida=nigi I.erg dica a=nigi she hej where kije (10) and König 1998): ▶ morphosyntactically decomposable into also/even + if (Haspelmath go-cond. µ ▶ unconditionals involve conjunction of alternatives ▶ they exhaust the relevant alternatives ▶ alternatives are mutually exclusive

  18. =nigi marking: other uses which.m=NIGI ‘You believe whichever man.’ 2sg.abs mun believe.prs božula man.loc čijasda kinaw=nigi FCIs (Uslar 1889, 109) (12) ‘Give it to anyone.’ give.imp ł’e who.dat=NIGI łie=nigi (11) ▶ Chierchia: FC efgects obtain from X ( p ) under ⋄

  19. Summary analysis of exclusive disjunction (Mitrović 2015) ▶ =nigi disjunction seems problematic for exhaustifjcation-based ▶ unless =ni isn’t a κ particle but is e.g. a topic marker ▶ parallels with unconditionals should be explored further

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend