Uniqueness Effects in Correlatives

The paper argues that the variability of the uniqueness effects exhibited by Hindi and Romanian correlatives is due to their mixed referential and quantificational nature. The account involves an articulated notion of quantification, independently motivated by donkey anaphora and quantificational subordination and consisting of both (discourse) referential components and non-referential components (dynamic operators over plural info states). The variable uniqueness effects emerge out of the interaction between: (i) the semantics of wh-indefinites, singular anaphors and habitual morphology and (ii) the pragmatics of quantification, which allows for the selection of different levels of 'zoom-in' on the quantified-over objects. 1 Uniqueness Effects in Hindi and Romanian Correlatives The goal of this paper is to account for the variability of the uniqueness effects associated with correlative constructions in Hindi and Romanian. Correlatives are “biclausal topic-comment structures [...] [in which] the dependent clause introduces one or more topical referents to be commented on by the matrix clause, where each topical referent must be picked up by – correlated with – an anaphoric proform” (Bittner 2001: 39). The examples in (1) (Hindi) and (2, 3) (Romanian) below are single wh-topic correlatives, while (4) (Hindi) and (5) (Romanian) are multiple wh-topic correlatives. Adrian Brasoveanu Uniqueness Effects in Correlatives 48 (1) definite interpretation – Hindi (based on Dayal 1996): jo laRkii lambii hai, vo khaRii hai. which girl tall be.prs, that one standing be.prs ‘The one girl that is tall is standing.’ (2) definite interpretation – Romanian: Care fat i=a=uitat ieri haina, which girl her.Dat=HAS=forgotten yesterday coat.the, pe aceea o=caut tat -l ei. PE that one her.Acc=look for father-the her.Gen ‘The father of the girl that forgot her coat yesterday is looking for her.’ (3) universal interpretation – Romanian: Pe care om l=a=interogat Securitate-a, PE which person him.Acc=HAS=interrogated security-the, în acela nu=mai=am încredere in that one not=anymore=HAVE.1sg trust ‘I do not trust any person interrogated by the secret police anymore.’ (4) mixed universal & definite interpretation – Hindi (Dayal 1996): jis laRkii-ne jis laRke-ke saath khel-aa, which girl-Erg which boy-with together play-pfv us-ne us-ko haraa-yaa. that one-Erg that one-Acc defeat-pfv ‘Every girl that played against a boy is such that (she played against exactly one boy and) she defeated the one boy she played against.’ (5) universal interpretation – Romanian: Cine ce mîncare i=a=adus, Who what food REFL.Dat=HAS=brought pe aceea o =va=mînca. PE that one it.Acc=WILL.3sg eat ‘Everyone will eat whatever food they brought with them.’ There is speaker variation with respect to the readings associated with episodic multiple-topic correlatives in Hindi: some speakers agree with the claim in Dayal (1996) that sentence (4) has a mixed universal & definite reading, while others claim that (4) can have only an across-the-board definite reading: the (one) girl who played with the (one) boy defeated him. See fn. 12 below for more discussion. Dayal (1996) does not provide a translation that clearly locates the uniqueness effects in the nuclear scope of the every quantification, but my informants report that this is the correct translation – as opposed to the truth-conditionally distinct ‘Every girl that played against exactly one boy defeated him’, which locates the uniqueness effects in the restrictor of the every quantification. A more natural (colloquial) variant is: Cine ce i-a adus, aia o s m nînce (Everyone will eat whatever they brought). Adrian Brasoveanu Uniqueness Effects in Correlatives 49 The main proposal is that the variation in interpretation (definite / unique vs. universal / non-unique) exhibited by these constructions follows from their ambivalent referential and quantificational nature, which is closely related to the ambivalent referential and quantificational nature of (wh) indefinites like a / which frog or definites like the frog. The account is formulated in a compositional dynamic system that is independently motivated by weak / strong donkey anaphora and quantificational / modal subordination (Plural Compositional DRT, Brasoveanu 2007). Crucially, PCDRT enables us to define an articulated notion of quantification that consists of distinct (discourse) referential components and non-referential components (operators over plural info states). Thus, correlative constructions provide a window into the nature of reference and quantification in natural languages and are relevant for theories of how semantics interfaces with both syntax and pragmatics. On the syntax/semantics side, correlatives are interesting because, just like donkey sentences, they have a quantifier-binding semantics without syntactic c-command. This is shown in (6) below, where Hindi – and, for all intents and purposes, Romanian – correlatives are analyzed as adjunction structures that are closely related to topicalization constructions like Megan, I like herx (indexation convention: superscripts on antecedents, subscripts on anaphors). (6) [IP [CP which girl is standing ] [IP thatx one is tall ] ] On the semantic/pragmatics side – which is our main focus here – correlatives display a universal vs. definite variation in interpretation both within a particular language and across languages. Intra-linguistic variation is exemplified by single vs. multiple topic correlatives in Hindi: jo laRkii (which girl) receives a definite / unique interpretation in (1) (single topic) and a universal / non-unique interpretation in (4) (multiple topic). Also, compare the two Romanian single-topic correlatives: (2) has a definite / unique interpretation – it is infelicitous if there is more than one contextually salient girl who forgot her coat; (3) has a universal / non-unique interpretation – it is felicitous in the actual world, where more than one person was interrogated by the secret police. The definite correlative in (2) and the universal correlative in (3) are not morphosyntactically different: in both cases, the subordinate clause is eventive passé composé and the matrix clause is stative present; that is, the difference in their interpretation is not due to their temporal-aspectual structure, e.g. generic present (A dolphin eats fish and squid) vs. episodic past (A dolphin ate fish and squid). So, this variation in That c-command (o-command, outranking etc.) is needed for quantifier binding is shown by the contrast between Every boy recommended a book to hisx friends and #Every boy who read every x Harry Potter book recommended itx to his friends. The minimally different example Every boy who read a x Harry Potter book recommended itx to his friends shows that c-command is not needed for donkey anaphora. See Srivastav (1991) and Dayal (1995, 1996) and, also, Bhatt (2003) for a recent detailed discussion. Determiners are indexed because the non-determiner elements can be part of both antecedents and anaphors, e.g. a / every frog vs. the / this / said frog. Adrian Brasoveanu Uniqueness Effects in Correlatives 50 interpretation seems to be a pragmatic matter: we deal with regular, habitual phenomena in (3) and accidental, sporadic ones in (2) – and it is world knowledge, i.e. an extralinguistic, pragmatic factor that enables us to make this distinction. As far as variation across languages is concerned, the morphologically unrealized contrast between the interpretations of the Romanian correlatives in (2) and (3) is overtly marked in Hindi: Dayal (1995) notes that single-topic correlatives have a universal reading if we switch from episodic to habitual morphology, as in (7) below. (7) universal interpretation with habitual morphology– Hindi: jo laRkii lambii ho-tii hai, vo khaRii ho-tii hai. which girl tall be-hab.f be.prs, that one standing be-hab.f be.prs ‘A tall girl (generally) stands, e.g. in buses with very little leg room between seats.’ An informant remarks that, intuitively, (7) generalizes over situations in which there is a unique girl who is tall. About each such situation, we predicate that the girl in it stands. Another instance of cross-linguistic variation is provided by multiple-topic correlatives, which have an across-the-board universal interpretation in Romanian and a mixed universal & definite interpretation in Hindi. Thus, correlative constructions pose two problems: (i) the compositionality problem on the syntax/semantics side – in particular, the fact that the universal, quantificational reading does not require c-command and (ii) the 'uniqueness effects' variability on the semantics/pragmatics side – in particular, the connections between uniqueness effects on the one hand and, on the other hand, the semantics of habitual morphology in Hindi and the pragmatics of quantification at work in Romanian. The first problem is solved by taking a dynamic approach, which is specifically designed to compositionally capture syntactically non-local quantificational dependencies like donkey anaphora. We will not discuss the solution of this problem (see the appendix for all the relevant formal details), but instead focus on solving the second, semantics/pragmatics problem. This is clearer in examples like Care ce problem i=a=ales, pe aceea o=va=rezolva (Everyone will solve whatever problem, i.e. all & only the problems, they chose) or Care ce subiect i=a=ales, despre acela trebuie s =scrie (Everyone must write about whatever topic, i.e. all & only the topics, they chose). If we look at triple-topic correlatives, we see that the generalization is as follows: the initial topic receives a universal interpretation and the other topics are unique relative to each value of the initial topic. Adrian Brasoveanu Uniqueness Effects in Correlatives 51 2 The Semantics of Hindi Single-Topic Correlatives This section provides the analysis of the definite / unique vs. universal / non-unique interpretation of Hindi correlatives (sections 2.1 and 2.2) and indicates how this analysis is formalized in Plural Compositional DRT (section 2.3). Romanian correlatives and the cross-linguistic variation issues raised above are discussed in section 3. 2.1 The Definite / Unique Interpretation The Russellian analysis of definite descriptions derives their uniqueness by putting together a maximality and a singleton requirement, as shown in (8) below. (8) The chair Leif brought is wobbly. ∃x[chair(x) ∧ bring(leif, x) ∧ ∀y[chair(y) ∧ bring(leif, y) → y=x] ∧ wobbly(x)] existence maximality singleton uniqueness The analysis can be alternatively represented in terms of set variables, as shown in (9). (9) ∃X[X ≠ ∅ ∧ X = {y: chair(y) ∧ bring(leif, y)} ∧ |X| = 1 ∧ wobbly(X)] existence maximality singleton uniqueness I propose that the definite / unique interpretation of Hindi (and Romanian) correlatives arises as a consequence of (i) the maximality contributed by the wh-indefinite in the topic / subordinate clause, together with (ii) the singleton requirement contributed by the singular demonstrative in the comment / matrix clause, as (10) below shows: (10) jo laRkii lambii hai, voX khaRii hai. which girl tall be.prs, that one standing be.prs ∃X[X ≠ ∅ ∧ X = {y: girl(y) ∧ tall(y)} ∧ |X| = 1 ∧ standing(X)] maximality singleton uniqueness That is, our Hindi episodic single-topic correlative is interpreted as follows: (i) the topic clause introduces a set X containing all and only the individuals that satisfy both the restrictor and the nuclear scope property of the wh-indefinite, i.e. the set of tall girls – Adrian Brasoveanu Uniqueness Effects in Correlatives 52 this is due to the maximality (in a sense, λ-abstraction) contributed by the wh-indefinite; (ii) then, we check the comment clause relative to the set X, that is, we check that X is a singleton set – due to the singleton requirement contributed by the singular anaphor – and that the only girl in X is standing. Note that we do not conflate Russellian definites (or universal quantifiers) and maximal indefinites: (i) definites maximize only over their restrictor property (the same thing happens with universal quantifiers), i.e. we extract the set of individuals satisfying the restrictor property, and check that this set is a singleton and that it satisfies the nuclear scope property; (ii) maximal indefinites maximize over both the restrictor and the nuclear scope property, i.e. we extract the set of individuals satisfying both of them, and we check that this set is non-empty. Thus, definites and maximal indefinites differ with respect to: (i) whether or not maximization ‘includes’ the nuclear scope property and (ii) whether or not the singleton requirement is part of their meaning. The way we use maximal indefinites becomes clearer if we look at a related phenomenon in English, namely the uniqueness effects associated with singular crosssentential anaphora. Consider (11) and (12) below – and “suppose I need to borrow a chair [...] Leif has ten identical chairs, and he is willing to lend any of them. You can now say [(11)] to me [...]. In this situation, the NP a chair does not refer to a unique chair. [...] When anaphora is attempted, however, the uniqueness effect always shows up. Consider [(12)] in the same situation, and be sure that you are completely unable to distinguish any one of Leif's chairs from his other chairs. [...] Many speakers cannot use [(12)] in such a situation [...] [(12)] is only felicitous [...] [if] they are referring to a chair which is uniquely identified by some property” (Kadmon 1990: 279-280). (11) Leif has a chair. (Kadmon 1990) (12) a. Leif has a chair. b. It is in the kitchen. (Kadmon 1990) These uniqueness effects can be derived in terms of maximal indefinites as shown in (13) below (Kadmon 1990 proposes a different analysis): sentence (12a) introduces a set X consisting of all and only the individuals satisfying the restrictor and nuclear scope properties of the indefinite, i.e. the chairs that Leif brought; then, (12b) checks that X is a singleton (due to the singular anaphor) and that the only chair in X is in the kitchen. Ordinary and wh indefinites differ with respect to how their maximality comes about: maximality is always part of the semantics of wh indefinites, but only a (pragmatic) default for ordinary indefinites. This enables us to account for non-unique singular anaphora (unlike Kadmon 1990), e.g. Leif memorized a poem and I memorized a differentx one / an otherx one (or: a x' poem that was different from itx). This also enables us to account for (mixed) weak and strong donkey sentences, as Brasoveanu (2007) shows. Adrian Brasoveanu Uniqueness Effects in Correlatives 53 (13) Leif has a chair. ItX is in the kitchen. ∃X[X ≠ ∅ ∧ X = {y: chair(y) ∧ have(leif, y)} ∧ |X| = 1 ∧ in_kitchen(X)] maximality singleton uniqueness Thus, singular cross-sentential anaphora provides independent justification for the proposed analysis of uniqueness effects in correlatives. 2.2 The Universal / Non-Unique Interpretation The universal / non-unique interpretation of Hindi correlatives basically arises by interposing a distributivity operator, contributed by the habitual morphology in the matrix clause, between (i) the maximal wh-indefinite in the subordinate clause and (ii) the singleton requirement contributed by the singular demonstrative in the matrix. (14) jo laRkii lambii ho-tii hai, voX khaRii ho-tii hai. which girl tall be-hab.f be.prs, that one standing be-hab.f be.prs ∃X[X ≠ ∅ ∧ X = {y: girl(y) ∧ tall(y)} ∧ ∀x∈X [|{x}| = 1 ∧ standing({x})]] maximality iddistributivity singleton non-uniqueness universal interpretation The distributivity operator contributed by habitual morphology neutralizes the singleton requirement contributed by the singular anaphor. Therefore, the maximality of the whindefinite delivers the desired universal / non-unique interpretation. But why would habitual morphology contribute a distributivity operator over individuals? In fact, it does not: I actually take habitual morphology to contribute distributivity over cases / situations – and only indirectly over the individuals featured in these cases / situations. Recall the informant’s comment about the habitual correlative in (7): this correlative generalizes over situations in which there is a unique girl who is tall; about each such situation, we predicate that the girl in it stands. 10 For simplicity, I take habitual morphology in the subordinate clause to be an agreement marker with a vacuous semantic value (e.g. an identity function of the appropriate type). Nothing crucial rests on this – the final version of the analysis allows for every occurence of the habitual morphology to be uniformly interpreted while still deriving the desired interpretation; see the appendix for the formal details. Adrian Brasoveanu Uniqueness Effects in Correlatives 54 The English discourses in (15) (Sells 1985) and (16) (Karttunen 1976) below exhibit a similar kind of distributivity, i.e. a similar kind of ‘zooming in’ on each case / situation under consideration: (15) says that, for each case / situation featuring a chess set and a spare pawn, the pawn in the case / situation under consideration is taped to the top of the box; and (16) says that, for each case / situation featuring a convention and a woman courted by Harvey at that convention, the woman in the case / situation under consideration comes to the banquet with Harvey. (15) a. Every chess set comes with a spare pawn. b. Itx is taped to the top of the box. (16) a. Harvey courts a woman at every convention. b. Shex always comes to the banquet with him. Thus, I propose that the distributivity contributed by Hindi habitual morphology is the same as the distributivity contributed by always in (16) – or covertly supplied in (15). We also need to slightly revise our semantics for wh-indefinites: they do not introduce maximal sets of individuals, but maximal sets of cases / situations featuring all and only the individuals that satisfy their restrictor and nuclear scope. So, how should we formalize this pre-theoretical notion of case? “[A] case may be regarded as the tuple of its participants; and these participants are values of the variables [i.e. anaphors] that occur free in the open sentence modified by the adverb [e.g. always in (16)]. In other words, we are taking the cases to be the admissible assignments of values to these variables” (Lewis 1975: 5-7). That is, a case is a sequence of individuals assigned as values to whatever variables / anaphors we have. Importantly, formalizing maximality requires us to manipulate sets of such cases / sequences – unlike Lewis (1975), which manipulates single cases. For example, the set of cases contributed by sentence (16a) relative to the empty set of cases ∅ (on the narrow-scope reading of the indefinite a woman) is as shown below: G y x g1 convention1 woman1 woman1 is courted at convention1 g2 convention2 woman2 woman2 is courted at convention2 ∅ g3 convention3 woman3 woman3 is courted at convention3 We store under the variable y all the conventions attended by Harvey and under x all the women courted by Harvey at the y-conventions. The cases / sequences encode the At every convention, Harvey courts a woman. Adrian Brasoveanu Uniqueness Effects in Correlatives 55 dependencies between conventions and women in a distributive, pointwise manner: the woman in g1 (namely woman1) is courted at the convention in g1 (i.e. at convention1), the woman in g2 is courted at the convention in g2 etc. Then, sentence (16b), in particular the adverb always, instructs us to distributively test this set G of sequences: for each sequence, we check that the x-woman came to the banquet of the y-convention, e.g. for g1, we check that woman1 came to the banquet of convention1 etc. A compositional account of quantificational subordination along these lines (also, of donkey anaphora and modal subordination) is provided in Plural Compositional DRT (PCDRT; Brasoveanu 2007). I propose to use the same, independently motivated framework to account for the way in which correlatives are interpreted. The analysis, outlined in the following section, can be reformulated in situation-based terms if suitable adjustments are made, e.g. quantificational structures manipulate sets of (minimal) situations and pass them on across clausal boundaries. 2.3 Correlatives in Plural Compositional DRT (PCDRT) The definite / unique single-topic correlative is analyzed as before, except that the tall girls are stored one at a time in a set of sequences and not lumped together in a single sequence storing the whole set – as shown in (17) below. (17) jo laRkii lambii hai, vox khaRii hai. which girl tall be.prs, that one standing be.prs max(girl(x) ∧ tall(x)) ∧ singleton(x) ∧ standing(x) G x G x g1 girl1 g1 girl1 g2 girl2 g2 girl2 ∅