1 / 49

0 Introduction

E mbedded Implicatures, Fossilization, and Incremental Interpretation Reinhard Blutner department of philosophy UvA 2005. 0 Introduction.

kirby-robbins
Télécharger la présentation

0 Introduction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Embedded Implicatures, Fossilization, and Incremental InterpretationReinhard Blutnerdepartment of philosophy UvA2005 NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  2. 0 Introduction Fossils are the mineralized remains of animals or plants or other traces such as footprints. The totality of fossils and their placement in rock formations and sedimentary layers (strata) is known as the fossil record. The study of fossils is called paleontology. Fossils usually consist of traces left by the remains of the organism itself. However, fossils may also consist of the marks left behind by the organism while it was alive, such as the footprint of a dinosaur or reptile. These types of fossil are called trace fossils. [wikipedia.com/fossil]

  3. Fossilization in L2 • Why are the majority of adult second language learners unable to reach nativelikeness in their L2 competence and performance? • Answer: Fossilization • Fossilization is generally defined as a tendency toward premature and permanent cessation of grammatical development in the face of a) continuous exposure to input, b) adequate motivation to learn c) sufficient opportunity to use L2 under real operation conditions NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  4. Fossilization and Relevance Theory • Communication is not a simple matter of coding and decoding. RT (Sperber & Wilson 1986/1996) argues that inference is the basis of all communication, and of all aspects of linguistic communication. • Languages differ in terms of what aspects of the interpretation are obligatorily constrained by grammar and what are not: “The man dropped the melon and burst”(cf.La Polla 1997) • Linguists should then not take grammar as basic and try to interpret grammar, but take inference as the basis of communication, and try to determine how grammar develops to constrain interpretation. Grammar is then not seen as fixed structure, but something that is constantly evolving. NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  5. Fossilization in Optimality Theory • Stayc DuBravac (2001): The idea of using constraint demotion in order to explain fossilization phenomena in L2 • Jason Mattausch (2004): Fossilization (Grammaticalization/hardening/freezening) of implicatures in the context of binding phenomena. NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  6. BiOT and Incremental Interpretation • Unidirectional OT invites for incremental interpretation (Fanselow et. al., …) • (Weak) bidirectional OT (seen as an online mechanism of NL interpretation) is incompatible with incremental interpretation. • I propose a mechanism of fossilization that transforms a bidirectional OT system into a unidirectional one. The latter conforms with incremental interpretation whereas the former does not. • An application of this view in connection with embedded implicatures: BiOT triggers fossilization. NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  7. Outline • Pragmatics in OT • Fossilization in lexical pragmatics: Om and rond • Towards a theory of fossilization in OT • Embedded implicatures • Fossilization and the proper treatment of embedded implicatures • Conclusions NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  8. 1 Pragmatics in OT • Blocking effects in interpretation • Bidirectional OT and conversational implicatures • Strong and weak bidirection • Weak bidirection as an online mechanism?

  9. Blocking effects in interpretation |J’C|=1 |J’C|=2 |J’C|=3 |J’C|=4| J’C|=5 John has 1 child John has 2 children John has 3 children John has 4 children John has 5 children • The existence of blocking effects in interpretation is an argument for bidirection NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  10. Bidirectional OT • Consider two directions of optimization • Hearer-oriented: Expressive Optimization • Speaker-oriented: Interpretive Optimization • Use the same set of constraints and the same ranking for both perspectives • Hence, the evaluator evaluates pairs of representations (e.g. form-meaning pairs) • Strong bidirection: a form-meaning is called optimal iff it is both Hearer- and Speaker-optimal NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  11. Conversational Implicatures (given Q) (given I) (bearing the Q-principle in mind). unless providing a stronger statement would contravene the I-principle NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  12. Strong and weak bidirection - example • Constraints expressing • preferences for short expressions, – preferences for stereotypical interpretations • Strong bidirection Weak bidirection • Weak bidirection can be precisely formulated using a recursive definition (Jäger 2002) NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  13. Strong and weak bidirection • Strong bidirection:F, M is strongly optimal iffa. F, M GEN, b. there is no F’, M GEN such that F’, M > F, Mc. there is no F, M’  GEN such that F, M’ > F, M • Weak bidirection (Blutner 2000, Jäger 2002):F, M is weakly optimal (= super-optimal) iffa. F, M GEN, b. there is no weakly optimal F’, M GEN such that F’, M > F, Mc. there is no weakly optimal F, M’  GEN such that F, M’ > F, M • Computational complexity of weak bidirection • Is it plausible to assume the recursive mechanism of weak bidirection as an online mechanism? • If not, what is the status of weak bidirection? NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  14. Weak bidirection as an online process? • Mind reading capacities of Human beings (e.g. Tomasello 1999 who sees in mind reading the cultural origin of human cognition) • Mind reading relates to a controlled (rather than automatic) mechanism. It requires conscious attention. • The automaticity of conversational implicatures (Tanenhaus, Noveck, Breheny,…) • Processing theories versus memory theories of automaticity (Logan 1988) • Fossilization relates to a memory theory of automaticity. NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  15. B A The idea of fossilization Bias Constraints (Zeevat, Mattausch) Fossili-zation {F, M}>> {…} {A, B} >> {…} weak BiOTunidirectional OT NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  16. 2 Fossilization in lexical pragmatics: Om and rond Pragmatics in the lexicon: three phenomena Jost Zwarts: round The strongest meaning hypothesis Narrowing and broadening: om and rond in Dutch A problem for iconicity and the view of cultural embodiment

  17. Pragmatics in the Lexicon • Lexical Narrowing • all doctors drink • please smoke inside • Approximation/Broadening • this laptop cost 1000 dollars • this man runs round the block (barrier, corner) * • Metaphorical Extension • I see the tree • I see what you’re getting at • I smell what you’re getting at ** * Zwarts 2003 ** Sweetser 1990 NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  18. Joost Zwarts: round in English a. The postman ran round the block (in a circle) b. The burglar drove round the barrier (to the opposite side) c. The steeplechaser ran round the corner (to the other side) d. The captain sailed round the lake e. The tourist drove round the city centre NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  19. The strongest meaning hypothesis • Dalrymple, M., M. Kanazawa, S. Mchombo & S. Peters (1994). What do reciprocals mean? Proceedings of SALT 4. • SMH: A reciprocal sentence is interpreted as expressing the logically strongest candidate truth conditions which are not contradicted by known properties of the relation expressed by the reciprocal scope when restricted to the group argument. • The girls know each other≃Every girl knows every other girl. • The girls are standing on each other≄ #Every girl is standing on every other girl. • Zwarts applies this idea to the expression round. NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  20. round The generation of candidate meanings • Assume that core meaning of round corresponds to a circle • Consider properties of circular paths and their entailments • This constitutes a partial ordering of the candidates of broadening • vector space semantics • constancy: all vectors have the same length • completeness: there is a vector pointing in every direction • loop: Starting point and end point of the path are identical • inversion: at least a half circle • orthogonality: at least a quarter-circle • detour: any path that does not describe a straight line NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  21. A straightforward use of OT • Constraints • FIT: interpretations should not conflict with the (linguistic) context • STRENGTH: stronger interpretations are better than weaker interpretations NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  22. Form variation in Dutch: om, rond, rondom DETOUR ------------------------------------------------ CIRCLE om … strengthening  …  weakening … rond/rondom NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  23. rond om Predicative use of om and rond • Zwart’s (2005) finding using minimal pairs: • If rondhas some interpretation m then it has each stronger interpretation • If om has some interpretation m then it has each weaker interpretation • there is some overlap betweenomand rond • A puzzle: • the marked form (rond) conforms to the stronger (= preferred) meanings • the unmarked form (om) conforms to the weaker meanings • This conflicts with weak bidirection and iconicity NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  24. The puzzle • Constraints expressing • preferences for unmarked expressions (phonologically light,…) • preferences for unmarked interpretations (prototypical, relevant, strong) • The normal case The exceptional case • What is the nature of iconicity/division of pragmatic labour/week bidirection? How to derive it? NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  25. 3 Towards a theory of fossilization in OT The origin of the universal tendency of Constructional Iconicity(or Horn’s division of pragmatic labour) Unmarked forms tend to be used for unmarked situations and marked forms for marked situations

  26. Explaining language universals NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  27. Memic selection: basic ideas • Memes correspond to the different rankings >> of a given system of constraints in an OT system. • Each agent X (with his memes) determines a speaker’s strategy and a hearer’s strategy • In pairwise interactions between an agent a (in the role of the Speaker) and an agent b (in the role of the Hearer) an utility/fitness function U is realized that reflects how good they understand each other • The number of offspring is determined by the utility values (When they understand each other they have much more offsprings than when they do not). • Mutations change the strategies played by some elements of the population NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  28. All possible strategies (≃ memes) Horn Smolensky AntiHorn NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  29. Population in pairwise interaction NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  30. Results • Horn and Anti-Horn are the only strategies (OT-systems) that are evolutionary stable • Starting with a uniform Smolensky population will always result in a pure Horn population supposed P(M) > P(M’) and k(F) < k(F’) • Mixed populations develop into pure Horn populations supposed P(M) > P(M’) and k(F) < k(F’) NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  31. B B B B A A Evolutionary change 1 Assumption: The unmarked interpretations (the prototypical ones) are more frequent then the marked ones • A: cause to die refers to indirect causation.B:kill refers todirect causation • A: self refers to the conjoint interp. B:pro refers tothedisjoint interp. NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  32. *B Evolutionary change 2 Assumption: The unmarked interpretations (strength) are less frequent then the marked ones *B: om refers to detour The instability of the initial situation (supposed P(detour) > P(circle)) is resolved by foregrounding the lexical bias constraint *B. NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  33. Discussion • A theory of evolutionary stability can explain the general pattern of iconicity in cases where unmarked situations (strength!) are more frequent than marked ones • A different prediction is made when the marked situations are the more frequent ones. This explains the broadening effect for rond and the narrowing effect for om. • As an evolutionary model, this approach explains how coversational implicatures become conventionalized (cf. Mattausch 2004; reconstructing Levinson’s account to the binding phenomena) • Another case of broadening: imprecise interpretations (cf. Krifka 2004) NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  34. 4 Embedded implicatures The relevance-theoretic distinction between explicature and implicature Embedded implicature hypothesis (EIH) R-based implicatures generally satisfy EIH Q-based implicatures can violate EIH In defence of a global theory Towards a theory of fossilization

  35. The relevance theoretic distinction between explicature and implicature • The distinction is a derivational distinction and arises only in the context of verbal ostensive communication. • Explicatures are assumptions constructed by developing the logical forms encoded by the utterance. Implicatures are assumptions constructed by “developing assumption schemes retrieved from encyclopaedic memory” (Sperber & Wilson 1986, p. 181) NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  36. Embedded implicature hypothesis (EIH) (1) a. I believe that John had a drink ⇝ I believe that John had an ADb. I doubt that John had a drink ⇝ I doubt that John had an AD (2) a.I believe thatsome students wait for me ⇝ I believe that some but not all students wait for me b. I doubt thatsome students wait for me ⇝ I doubt that some but not all students wait for mec. I doubt thatsome students wait for me ⇝ I believe that no students wait for me (or all students wait for me) / EIH: If assertion of a sentence S conveys the implicatum that p with nearly universal regularity, then when S is embedded the content that is usually understood to be embedded for semantic purposes is the proposition S&p (Green 1998). It seems to hold for R-based implicatures (explicatures in RT) but not generally for Q-based implicatures (implicatures proper) NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  37. R-based implicatures satisfy EIH The intuitive truth-conditional content of an utterance may go well beyond the proposition obtained by decoding, disambiguation and reference assignment. The following examples illustrate freeenrichment as a pragmatic processes that contribute to the recovery of the proposition expressed by an utterance. Neo-Griceans would classify them as R-based • a. I lost a contact lens in the accident (⇝contact lens of the Speaker) b. I didn’t lose a contact lens in the accident, but Mary did c. Either Mary lost a contact lens in the accident or Bob did • a. Peter drank several beers and drove home (⇝temporal sequence) b. If Peter drank several beers and drove home, then I will really be disappointed b. If Peter drove home and drank several beers, then I will not be disappointed NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  38. More R-based implicatures Domain restrictions • a. Everyone left early (⇝everyone at the party left early) b. Either everyone left early or the ones who stayed on are in the garden Meronomic restriction • a. This apple is red (⇝ the outside of the apple is red)b. I doubt that the apple is red Reciprocals and plural predication • a. The girls saw each other (⇝ every girl saw every other girl) b. I doubt that the girls saw each other. No girl sees girl 5 • a. The cats see the dogs (⇝every cat sees every dog) b. I doubt that the cats see the dogs. No cat sees dog 3 • a. The cats are sitting in the baskets (⇝every cat is sitting in one of the baskets) b. # I doubt that the cats are sitting in the baskets. No cat is sitting in basket 3, all cats are sitting in baskets 1 and 2 (Winter 2001) NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  39. Q-based implicatures violate EIH • a. Mary lives somewhere in the south of France b. Speaker does not know where in the south of France Mary resides. c. If Mary lives somewhere in the south of France, then I do not know where d. If (c) would satisfy EIH, then it should be a tautology, see Carstons p. 194) • a.  ⇝¬K, with  stronger than b. x(x) ⇝¬K (a), for each individual place ac. x(x) ¬K (a) [no stronger alternatives]d. (x(x) & ¬K (a)) ¬K (a) [tautology for local solution]. NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  40. Scalar implicatures: some • Some students are waiting for John: ⇝ some but not all … • a. John believes that some students are waiting for him.b. John believes that not every student is waiting for himc. It is not the case that John believes that every student is waiting for him • a. John doubts that some students are waiting for himb. John believes that no students are waiting for him • a. If some students are waiting he will be happyb. If some but not all students are waiting he will be happyc. If all students are waiting he will be (much more) happy [this should come out as a natural consequence of (a)] In (13) EIH seems to be correct but not in the downward entailing contexts (14) and (15). NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  41. Scalar implicatures: or • a. If Paul or Bill come, Mary will be upsetb. #But if Paul and Bill both come, Mary won’t bec. If Paul comes, Mary or Sue will be upsetThe local implicature (EIH) is not realized in the antecedent but in the conclusion • I wasn’t shocked because I touched the red wire OR the blue wire. I was shocked because I touched both. (D. Fox)The local implicature IS realized in the antecedent when the OR is marked • John doubts that Paul or Bill are in that room. (This sentence cannot be used if it is evident for John that both are in the room)The local implicature is not realized in negative embedding predicates • Did John or Paul arrive?a. # No; they both didb. Yes, they both didIn questions, the local implicature does not appear NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  42. Scalar implicatures: count nouns • a. John: “My colleague makes $ 100 an hour”b. John believes that his colleague makes $ 100 an hourc. If he makes $ 100 an hour then he must be very rich.Again the local implicature is realized in (b) but not in (c) • a. If John has two cars, the third one parked outside must be somebody else’s. b. If John has two cars and no more, the third one parked outside must be somebody else’sChierchia (p.24) describes this as an accommodation (what is different from a local implicature) • Conclusion: The scalar implicatures connected with count nouns only appear in upward entailing contexts. NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  43. Interacting connectives and quantifiers • George ate some of the fries or the apple pie.a. It is not the case that George ate all of the fries.b. It is not the case that George ate all of the fries or the apple pie (global blocking theory)c. George did not eat the apple pie [counterintuitiveconsequence of (b)]Global blocking cannot account for the intuitive inference expressed in (a) • Russel (2004): Global blocking solution is possible!a. K(A  (F)G)b. K(A  (F)G) blocking expressionc. K(A ) K(F)G) logic of Kd. K(A )  K((F)G) embedding implicature e. clausal implicature forbids inference to K(A )  K((F)G) NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  44. Conclusions of the empirical part • R-based implicatures are Explicatures (satisfying EIH) • Q-based implicatures are Implicatures proper (roughly: they locally project in upward entailing contexts but not in downward entailing contexts) • Apparent counterexamples do not destroy this picture: • I wasn’t shocked because I touched the red wire OR the blue wire. I was shocked because I touched both. • Usually you may only take an apple. So, if you may take an apple OR take a pear, you should bloody well be pleased. • If John has two cars, the third one parked outside must be somebody else’s NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  45. Can a global theory explain EIs? • I think it can explain the contrast between explicatures and implicatures proper, with two provisos: • proper definition of relevance for R-based implicatures • reconsideration of the epistemic status of Q-based implicatures:  ⇝¬K rather than  ⇝ K¬ • A global theory such as bidirectional OT pragmatics should be seen as describing diachronic forces that explains conversational implicatures as the product of rational behaviour between cooperative conversants on a diachronic time scale • This does not conflict with local theories (Chierchia 2001, RT, Levinson 2000) which take an actual processing perspective and assume that scalar implicatures are computed automatically in the grammar by means of special semantic composition rules. NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  46. Relevance (Merin 1997) • For the R-based implicatures we need a proper measure of relevance • BE Strong (maximize informativity) fails for negative contexts • The same for the relevance-theoretic notion of relevance (maximize the contextual effect) • However, there are appropriate measures of the relevance of complex sentences. • Three conditions of a local theory of relevance • Rel(A&B) = Rel(A)+Rel(B) if A and B are independent • Rel(A) = -Rel(A) • Rel(AB) = Rel(A) +(1- )Rel(A) with 0   1 NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  47. In defense of a local theory • Local theories use a compositional mechanism in order to calculate the implicatures of complex sentences. • Basic implicatures are connected to particular lexical items • They project in an obvious way in case EIH is satisfied • If EIH is not generally satisfied a more refined projection mechanism is required (e.g. Chierchia’s) • Only local theories can account for an incremental interpretation mechanism. • Experimental pragmatics has stressed the automaticity of processing conversational implicatures (Tanenhaus, Noveck, Breheny, etc.). The emergence of local theories conforms to automatization. NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

  48. 5 Conclusions Global and local theories have both their place in describing aspects of language behaviour: global theories for the diachronic dimension local theories for the synchronic dimension and actual language processing The idea of Fossilization has been applied in connection with the grammaticalization of binding theory and the lexicalization of round. Using ideas of Kirby, it should be applicable to the ‘routinization’ of implicatures in complex sentences. This might be a starting point for resolving puzzles in experimental pragmatics Some elephants have a truck: why children sometimes think more logical than adults (Noveck) Acquisition of binding theory (Hendriks & Spenader)

  49. Any questions? NWO/DFG workshop Modelling incremental interpretation.

More Related