Subject/object asymmetry in questions with quantifiers: Syntax or - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Subject/object asymmetry in questions with quantifiers: Syntax or discourse?

Asya Achimova 1, Viviane D´ eprez 2, Julien Musolino 2

1University of Leipzig 2Rutgers University

October 16, 2015

Outline

Introduction Phenomenon Motivation Theoretical background Experimental data Discussion

Structural ambiguity in questions with quantifiers

Subject-quantifier question (1) Which assignment did every student complete? a. The semantics assigment. Single answer b. Jane completed the semantics assignment, Tom completed the syntax assignment, and Mary completed the phonology assigment. Pair-list answer c. Their hardest assignment. Functional answer

Structural ambiguity in questions with quantifiers

Object-quantifier question (2) Which student completed every assignment? a. Mary. Single answer b. * Jane completed the semantics assignment, Tom completed the syntax assignment, and Mary completed the phonology assigment. Pair-list answer

Structural ambiguity in questions with quantifiers

Object-quantifier question (3) Which student completed each assignment? a. Mary. Single answer b. Jane completed the semantics assignment, Tom completed the syntax assignment, and Mary completed the phonology assignment. Pair-list answer

Problem

◮ Williams (1988) observed that each does not exhibit the

asymmetry in questions

◮ Beghelli (1997), Szabolcsi (1997) proposed a

distributivity-based account for the lack of asymmetry

◮ I will show today that pair-list answers (PLA) are more readily

available for subject-quantifier questions than for

• bject-quantifier questions even when the quantifier is each

◮ That is, we observe the subject/object asymmetry with both

quantifier types

◮ Our results suggest that the asymmetry is a consequence of

discursive rather than purely structural constraints

Theoretical background

May (1985, 1988): Subject-quantifier questions

CP IP IP VP vP DP t1 V complete t2 I did DP N student2 D every DP N assignment1 D Which

Theoretical background

May (1985, 1988): Object-quantifier questions

CP IP IP VP vP DP t2 V complete t1 I did DP N assignment2 D every DP N student1 D Which

Chierchia, 1993

◮ Chierchia (1993) argues that wh-phrase leaves a functional

trace indexed to the wh and its referential argument

◮ The argument trace acts as a pronominal element ◮ Quantifiers can only bind pronouns they c-command. Crossing

• ver a pronoun is subject to WCO

◮ An object quantifier cannot bind a subject wh-trace, and no

PLA is possible

◮ These examples are parallel to classic WCO

◮ *His mother1 loves every boy1

Ag¨ uero-Bautista, 2001

◮ Ag¨

uero-Bautista (2001) makes use of the notion of reconstruction

◮ A PLA is available when the wh-phrase can reconstruct below

the quantifier

◮ Presuppositional wh-phrases, such as which-N cannot

reconstruct into a θ-position

◮ No PLA is possible for which-questions with object-every

Universal quantifiers are not all the same

◮ Williams (1988) observed that each escapes the restrictions

• n PLA availability

◮ PLAs are possible both for subject-quantifier and

• bject-quantifier questions

(4) Which student completed each assignment? a. Jane completed the semantics assignment, Tom completed the syntax assignment, and Mary completed the phonology assignment.

Distributivity and scope

◮ Beghelli (1997) proposed that strongly-distributive quantifiers,

such as each, can target a position higher than IP - Distributive phrase

◮ Therefore, each can take scope over the subject-wh-phrase ◮ We expect no asymmetry for each

Beghelli, 1997

Object-quantifier question: strongly distributive quantifiers

CP DistP ShareP AgrOP vP DP t2 V complete AgrO t1 DP N assignment2 D each DP N student1 D Which

Beghelli, 1997

Object-quantifier question: pseudo-distributive quantifiers

CP DistP ShareP AgrOP vP DP t2 V complete AgrO every assignment2 t1 DP DP N student1 D Which

Motivation

◮ Are PLAs equally available for subject- and object-quantifier

questions?

◮ Can we confirm the asymmetry for every and the lack of

asymmetry for each?

◮ In certain cases, judgments on the availability of PLAs appea

to be contradictory

Syntax-semantics interface

◮ Can semantic properties of the quantifiers override the

syntactic restrictions?

◮ Is the subject-object asymmetry a narrow phenomenon only

applying to every?

Experimental design

◮ Acceptability judgment task with na¨

ıve participants

◮ Judge the acceptability of a PLA on a 7-point scale ◮ Is that a possible answer? ◮ Definitely no (1) to Definitely yes (7)

Sample question

Which toy did every child pick?

John picked the car, Jane picked the truck, and Helen picked the toy tiger. Is that a possible answer? (Definitely no) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Definitely yes)

Structure of the experiment

2x2x2

◮ Quantifier position

◮ Subject quantifier ◮ Object quantifier

◮ Quantifier type

◮ Every ◮ Each

◮ Answer type

◮ Single answer ◮ Pair-list answer

Structure of the experiment

Experimental questions

◮ 3 Practice questions ◮ 32 Critical questions ◮ 60 Control and filler questions

Structure of the experiment

Participants

29 native speakers of English (undergraduate students)

Predictions

◮ We expect to see the asymmetry for every: PLAs should be

less available for object-quantifier questions

◮ If each is not subject to stuctural constraints due to its

semantics, PLAs should be equally available for both subject- and object-quantifier questions

Results

◮ PLAs for questions with each are more available (β=−1.385,

SD = 0.334, p <0.01)

◮ We observe a subject-object asymmetry for every β=1.573,

SD = 0.455, p <0.01)

◮ We also observe an asymmetry for each (β=2.014, SD =

0.319, p <0.01)

Results

Bayesian t-test

◮ The difference is scores for PLAs between subject- and

• bject-quantifier questions is the same for every and each

◮ The t-test yields a Bayes Factor of 5, which corresponds to

substantial evidence for H0 on Jeffreys (1961) scale

Are PLAs with object-every ever possible?

Variability in the data: questions with every

Discussion

Nature of the asymmetry: every

◮ Variability in the data is hard to explain within a structural

account of the asymmetry

◮ We need a flexible constraint on the availability of PLAs

Discussion

Nature of the asymmetry: each

◮ For the quantifier each, both subject- and object-quantifier

PLAs are lequally licensed

◮ Yet, even with each we observe the asymmetry: a PLAs is

more available for questions with subject quantifier

◮ We cannot use the grammatical/ungrammatical distinction to

account for this difference

◮ It must come from another source ◮ Information structure is a possible candidate

Proposal

◮ Following Krifka (2001), Endriss (2009), and Eilam (2011) we

suggest that the ability to give rise to PLAs depends on the ability of the quantifier phrase to be viewed as a topic

◮ We define topichood as aboutness, after Reinhart (1981) and

Endriss (2009)

◮ For questions, Jaeger (2003) defines the topic as “what the

question primarily requests information about” (2003:187)

Topichood and quantifier scope

◮ Subject-quantifiers more easily take wide scope since subjects

are often topics (Li & Thompson, 1976)

◮ The ability of an object-quantifier to be construed as a topic

depends on the context

◮ each-phrases are D-linked, therefore there is a set introduced

in discourse already. Therefore, it is easier to construct a discourse where they act as topics

Implications

◮ The information structure account predicts an asymmetry for

both universal quantifiers considered

◮ It also predicts that each can take wide scope more easily

• verall

◮ It allows to explain cases where PLAs are available for

questions with object every

References

Ag¨ uero-Bautista, C. (2001). Cyclicity and the scope of wh phrases. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Beghelli, F. (1997). The syntax of distributivity and pair-list readings. In A. Szabolcsi (ed.) Ways of scope taking. Kluwer Academic Publishing, 349-408. Chierchia, G. (1993). Questions with quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 181-234. Eilam, A. (2011). Explorations in the informational component. Doctoral dissertation, UPenn, Philladelphia. Publicly accessible Penn Dissertations. Paper 328. Endriss, C. (2009). Quantificational topics- A Scopal Treatment of Exceptional Wide Scope Phenomena, Studies in Linguistics & Philosophy, Springer. Jaeger, T. F. (2003). Topics first! In- and outside of Bulgarian wh-interrogatives. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 181-202. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Krifka, M. (2001). Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics, 9: 1-40. Li, C.N., S.A. Thompson (1976). Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, 457–589. New York: Academic Press. May, R. (1985). Logical form: its structure and derivation. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. May, R. (1988). Ambiguities of quantification and wh: a reply to Williams. Linguistic Inquiry, 19:118-135 Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27:53–94. Szabolsci, A. (1997a). Quantifiers in pair-list readings. In A. Szabolsci (ed.), Ways of scope taking, 349-408. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Williams, E. (1988). Is LF distinct from S-structure: A Reply to May. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 135-146.

Thank you!