Intonational meaning the case of alternative questions KATHRYN PRUITT FLORIS ROELOFSEN UMASS AMHERST MARCH 1, 2010
Canonical intonation patterns p
y S↑:
Is Ann-or-Bill↑ coming over tonight?
y M↓:
Is Ann↑ or Bill↓ coming over tonight?
y Relevant prosodic features: { Pitch accents { Final p pitch movement y What is the semantic contribution of these features?
A third pattern p y This Thi cannott b be d determined t i d just j t on the th b basis i off th the ttwo
canonical intonation patterns! y We must consider id at least l one non-canonical i l pattern. y S↑: Is Ann-or-Bill↑ coming over tonight?
BLOCK
y M↓: Is Ann↑ or Bill↓ coming over tonight?
CLOSED
y M↑: Is Ann↑ or Bill↑ coming over tonight?
OPEN
Puzzle 1: answerhood conditions Open: S↑
Block: S↑
o Bill↑ coming? y Is I Ann-or-Bill↑ A Bill↑ coming? i ? y Is Ann↑ or
y Is Ann↑ or o Bill↓ coming?
>neither y #Yes >yes, what?!
y # No
y (Yes,) (Yes ) Ann is
y (Yes,) (Yes ) Ann is
y Ann is
y (Yes,) Bill is
y (Yes,) Bill is
y Bill is
y No y Yes
>neither >at least one
y No
Closed: M↓
y # Yes
Puzzle 2: ‘exactlyy one’ suggestion gg
y Is Ann↑ or Bill↓ coming over tonight?
Suggests: exactly one of Ann and Bill is coming Declarative
Interrogative
y Ann↑ or Bill↓ is coming tonight.
y Is Ann↑ or Bill↓ coming tonight?
y No, neither of them are.
y # No, neither of them are. y Actually, Actually neither of them are are.
> at least one ‘asserted’
> at least one merely ‘suggested’
Syntax: y focus and closure y Block:
Is Ann-or-Bill↑ coming?
[Q i [Ann [Q-is [A or Bill]F coming] i ] y Open:
Is Ann↑ or Bill↑ coming?
[Q-is [Ann]F or [Bill]F coming] y Closed:
Is Ann↑ or Bill↓ coming?
[Q-is [Ann]F or [Bill]F coming]C
Semantics 1: p proposing p gp possibilities
y Ann is coming. y Is Ann coming? g y Ann or Bill is coming. coming y Is I A Ann or Bill coming? i ?
11
10
01
00
11
10
01
00
Semantics 2: highlighting g g gp possibilities
11
10
11
10
01
00
01
00
Is the door open?
Is the door closed?
Yes >the door is open
Yes >the door is closed
confirms the highlighted possibility
confirms the highlighted possibility
Focus,, highlighting, g g g, and yes/no y / resolution
11
10
11
10
01
00
01
00
Is Ann↑ or Bill↑ coming? y No >neither y #Yes >yes, what?! Yes No
Is Ann-or-Bill↑ coming? • No >neither • Yes >at least one
>presupposes exactly one highlighted possibility >confirms that possibility >rejects all highlighted possibilities (to be refined)
Semantics 3 3: closure I Ann↑ Is A ↑ or Bill↓ coming? i ? [Q-is [Q is [Ann]F or [Bill]F coming]C Suggests: exactly one of Ann and Bill is coming Proposes:
Highlights:
Suggests:
11
10
11
10
11
10
01
00
01
00
01
00
Semantics 3 3: closure
Generally:
So: Proposes: p
[X]C suggests that exactly one of the possibilities highlighted by X can be realized [Q-is [Q is [Ann]F or [Bill]F coming]C Highlights: g g
Suggests: gg
11
10
11
10
11
10
01
00
01
00
01
00
Suggestions: gg acceptance p and cancellation y y
Suggestions can either be accepted or cancelled Acceptance is the default (Groenendijk, 2008; Balogh, 2009)
(1) Is Ann↑ or Bill↓ coming? (2) Bill is.
> ‘exactly ‘ l one’’ suggestion i accepted d > Ann A iis not coming i y
Cancellation of a suggestion is not marked with ‘no’ no but with a weaker disagreement particle (‘actually’ or ‘in fact’)
(3) Is Ann↑ or Bill↓ ill coming? i (4) # No, neither of them is coming. (5) Actually, neither of them is coming.
Back to p puzzle 1: answerhood conditions
Block
Open p
Closed
y Is Ann-or-Bill↑ coming? y Is Ann↑ or Bill↑ coming?
y Is Ann↑ or Bill↓ coming?
y No
y #No >cancel suggestion
y Yes
Yes No
>neither >at least one
y No
>neither y #Yes >presup. failure
y #Yes >presup. failure
>presupposes that the question highlighted exactly one possibility >confirms that possibility >rejects all highlighted possibilities >not appropriate to cancel a suggestion
Back ac to puzzle pu e 2: dec declaratives a at es vss interrogatives te ogat es D l Declarative i
I Interrogative i
y Ann↑ or Bill↓ is coming tonight.
y Is Ann↑ or Bill↓ coming tonight?
y No, neither of them are.
y # No, neither of them are. y Actually, neither of them are.
at least one ‘asserted’ Proposes:
at least one merely ‘suggested’
Highlights:
Suggests:
Proposes:
Highlights:
Suggests:
11
10
11
10
11
10
11
10
11
10
11
10
01
00
01
00
01
00
01
00
01
00
01
00
Back to the experiment: p canonical p patterns
y S↑:
Is Ann-or-Bill↑ coming over tonight? => YN interpretation
y M↓:
Is Ann↑ or Bill↓ coming over tonight? => ALT interpretation
y As expected
Back to the experiment: p final fall onlyy
y S↓:
Is Ann Ann-or-Bill↓ or Bill↓ coming over tonight? => predominantly ALT interpretation
y Proposed acccount: { Final fall triggers search for highlighted alternatives { Without such alternatives, closure is meaningless { Lack of alternatives triggers re-analysis of focal structure
Back to the experiment: p S↑ versus M↑ y S↑:
Is Ann-or-Bill↑ coming over tonight? => YN interpretation p
y M↑:
Is Ann↑ or Bill↑ coming over tonight? => still predominantly YN interpretation
y Explanation: { {
{
Artefact of the experimental setup The offered YN paraphrase is compatible with the interpretation induced d db by S↑ but b also l with h that h induced d db by M↑ Further experimentation is needed to establish the subtle interpretive difference between the two patterns
Repercussions p y
Exclusivity l i i effects ff iin declarative d l i di disjunctions: j i
(1) Ann↑ or Bill↓ is coming. (2) Ann↑ is i coming, i or Bill↑, ill or both↓. b h y
>at most one >perhaps h b h both
Might:
(3) Jim might talk to Ann↑ or Bill↓. (4) Jim might g talk to Ann-or-Bill.
>at most one >perhaps p p both
y
Ignorance implicatures: follow from ‘inquisitive sincerity principle’
y
Cross-linguistic applicability: Core mechanisms may apply cross-linguistically, though their ‘implementation’ will differ (e.g., closure may be marked by intonation/word order/morphology).
