Fox/Menendez-Benito 11/14/06 Wrapping up discussion on Kratzer 2005 (inconclusively!) The plan: -- Go back to Irene’s objection briefly and present Angelika’s reply. -- Discuss Emmanuel’s example and Angelika’s reply. -- A cursory glance to Quantificational Variability Effects in questions (just the facts!) Kratzer also discusses a second puzzle: Quantificational Variability Effects in questions. We won’t discuss her account in class. But I will present the phenomenon in case you guys want to work your way through the rest of the handout. Part 1 1. Reminder: Kratzer’s proposal 1) The video shows which of those animals the man fed The video shows an actual situation s that exemplifies [[which of those animals the man fed]] (w0). [[which of those animals the man fed]] (w0)= λs [λx [fed(x)(the man)(s) & animals(x)(s)] = λx [fed(x)(the man)(w0) & animal (x)(w0)]] 2) The video shows which of those animals the man didn’t feed The video shows an actual situation s that exemplifies [[which of those animals the man didn’t feed]] (w0). [[which of those animals the man didn’t feed]] (w0) = λs [λx [~ fed(x)(the man)(s) & animals(x)(s)] = λx [~ fed(x)(the man)(w0) & animal (x)(w0)]] 1 Cite as: Daniel Fox and Paula Menendez-Benito, course materials for 24.954 Pragmatics in LinguisticTheory, Fall 2006. MIT OpenCourseWare (http://ocw.mit.edu/), Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Downloaded on [DD Month YYYY].Fox/Menendez-Benito 11/14/06 3) The video shows which of those animals the man fed. Exemplified by situations containing only fed animals. 4) The video shows which of those animals the man didn’t feed Exemplified by situations containing unfed animals • Since the positive and the negative question extensions are not exemplified by the same situations, (1) and (2) come out as having different truth-conditions. 2. Irene’s objection • The positive and the negative extension of the question are the same proposition! • We assumed that the set of relevant animals was {a, b, c, d} and replaced the condition ‘animal(x)(s)’ by ‘x ∈ {a, b, c, d}’ 5) [[which of those animals the man fed]] (w0)= λs [λx [fed(x)(the man)(s) & x ∈ {a, b, c}] = λx [fed(x)(the man)(w0) & x ∈{a, b, c, d} & x in w0] 6) [[which of those animals the man didn’t feed]] (w0) = λs [λx [~ fed(x)(the man)(s) & x ∈ {a, b, c, d}] = λx [~ fed(x)(the man)(w0) & x ∈ {a, b, c, d} & x in w0] • (5) and (6) are indeed equivalent. [exercise: show this]. To get an intuitive understanding, suppose that the man fed a and b and didn’t feed c and d, 5’) [[which of those animals the man fed]] (w0)= λs [λx [fed(x)(the man)(s) & x ∈ {a, b, c}] = {a, b} 6’) [[which of those animals the man didn’t feed]] (w0) = λs [λx [~ fed(x)(the man)(s) & x ∈ {a, b, c, d}] = {c, d} and consider the following types of situations (courtesy of Angelika Kratzer, in email correspondence). a. Possible situations in which the man fed only a. Both (5’) and (6’) are false. The negative one is false too (note: the set of animals that the man didn’t feed in these situations is {c, d, b}. Here is where I think I got confused last time. “the man didn’t feed b in s” can be true even if b doesn’t exist in s.] (same for situations in which the man fed only b). 2 Cite as: Daniel Fox and Paula Menendez-Benito, course materials for 24.954 Pragmatics in LinguisticTheory, Fall 2006. MIT OpenCourseWare (http://ocw.mit.edu/), Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyDownloaded on [DD Month YYYY]..Fox/Menendez-Benito 11/14/06 b. Possible situations in which the man fed a and b and no other animals. Both (5’) and (6’) are true. c. Possible situations in which the man fed no animals whatsoever. Both (5’) and (6’) are false [note: the set of animals that the man didn’t feed in those situations is {a, b, c, d}] d. Possible situations in which the man fed a, b, and c, but not d. Both (5’) and (6’) are false. (There’s just one animal that didn’t get fed.) e. Possible situations in which the man fed a, b, c, and d. Both (5’) and (6’) are false. … etc. 3. Angelika’s reply • We shouldn’t have replaced the condition ‘animal(x)(s)’ by ‘x ∈ {a, b, c}’. The condition ‘animal(x)(s)’ is to be read as ‘x is an animal that exists in s’ (cf. Emmanuel’s suggestion). This is crucial for the proposal to work. 7) [[which of those animals the man fed]] (w0)= λs [λx [fed(x)(the man)(s) & animals(x)(s)] = λx [fed(x)(the man)(w0) & animal (x)(w0)]] the proposition that is true in a situation s if the animals that exist in s and that the man fed in s are the same as the animals that exist in the actual world and that the man fed in the actual world. 8) [[which of those animals the man didn’t feed]] (w0) = λs [λx [~ fed(x)(the man)(s) & animals(x)(s)] = λx [~ fed(x)(the man)(w0) & animal (x)(w0)]] the proposition that is true in a situation s if the animals that exist in s and that the man didn’t feed in s are the same as the animals that exist in the actual world and that the man didn’t fed in the actual world. 3 Cite as: Daniel Fox and Paula Menendez-Benito, course materials for 24.954 Pragmatics in LinguisticTheory, Fall 2006. MIT OpenCourseWare (http://ocw.mit.edu/), Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Downloaded on [DD Month YYYY].Fox/Menendez-Benito 11/14/06 Now: • (7) and (8) are NOT logically equivalent. Again, suppose that the actual animals are a, b, c and d, and that the man fed a and b but didn’t feed c and d. Consider a situation s2 that contains the man feeding a and b, poor c lies about unfed and nothing else happens. (7) is true in s2: the set of animals that exist in s2 and that are fed in s2 is {a, b} (7) is false in s2: the set of animals that exist in s2 and that are not fed in s2 is {c} ≠ ({c, d}) • (7) and (8) are exemplified by different situations. • But what about 7’) Which of a, b and c the man fed. 8’) Which of a, b and c the man didn’t feed. (Irene’s examples) In class, we decided we need: 7’’) [[which of a, b and c the man fed]] (w0)= λs [λx [fed(x)(the man)(s) & in(x)(s) & x ∈ {a, b, c} ] = λx [fed(x)(the man)(w0) & in(x)( w0) & x ∈ {a, b, c} 9’’) [[which of a, b and c the man didn’t