The meaning of comparative constructions in …matsuiai/handouts/20140425_comparatives.pdfThe...

The meaning of comparative constructions in English and Japanese

I love our dog more than my husbandThe meaning of comparative constructions in English and

Japanese

Ai Kubota

Michigan State University

April 25, 2014

1 / 34


Introduction

What does it mean?

(1) I love our dog more than my husband.

(2) Watashi-waI-top

otto-yorihusband-than

inu-odog-acc

aishiteiru.love

‘I love our dog more than my husband.’ [Meaning (a) or (b)]

a. b.

2 / 34


Introduction

Structural (syntactic) ambiguity

Similarly, (3) also has more than one interpretation.

(3) John saw the man with the binoculars.

a. John used the binoculars and looked at the man.b. John saw the man who has the binoculars.

Two different interpretations for one sentence? How come?⇒More than one underlying sentence structure

a’. S

NPJohn

VP

VP

Vsaw

NP

the man

PP

with the binoculars

b’. S

John VP

saw NP

NP

the man

PP

with the binoculars3 / 34


Introduction

Why care about structural (syntactic) ambiguity?

It reveals the underlying structure of sentences, which is notobvious just from the surface structure.

Furthermore, it demonstrates the close connection betweenthe structure (syntax) and meaning (semantics).

Thus, analyzing structural ambiguity is important for both thetheory of syntax and semantics.

However, in the actual use of language, we don’t get panickedeach time we encounter an ambiguous sentence. Normally,the discourse context helps us pick the right interpretation.(e.g. John, who is a detective, has been tracking movement ofone man.)

4 / 34


Introduction

Goals of this talk:

1 Analyze structural ambiguity found in comparativeconstructions in two languages, English and Japanese.

2 Analyze a special case in which the ambiguity disappears ineach language.

3 Compare the mechanism of disambiguation in the twolanguages.

4 Discuss how the ambiguity and disambiguation ofcomparatives might be linguistically interesting in general.

5 / 34


Introduction

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

2 Ambiguity and disambiguation in English comparatives

3 Ambiguity and disambiguation in Japanese comparatives

4 Discussion

5 Conclusion

6 / 34


Ambiguity and disambiguation in English comparatives

Table of Contents

1 Introduction



4 Discussion

5 Conclusion

7 / 34



Disambiguation by focus

(4) I love our dog more than my husband. [Meaning (a) or (b)]

(5) I love our dog more than my husband. [Meaning (a)]

(6) I love our dog more than my husband. [Meaning (b)]

a. b.

8 / 34



Disambiguation by focus

Q1: Why do some comparatives have more than one meaning?

Q2: Why does intonation (in this case, focus, as indicated by[ ]F ) affect the interpretation?

9 / 34



Syntax and semantics of comparatives


(8) Degree to which I love our dog >

Degree to which my husband loves our dog

(9)max{d |love(dog)(me)(d)} > max{d ′|love(dog)(hubby)(d ′)}

λd . love(dog)(me)(d)

I love our dog (d-much)

λp. max{d |p(d)} >max{d ′|love(dog)(hubby)(d ′)}

more λd ′. love(dog)(hubby)(d ′)

than my husband loves our dog (d ′-much)10 / 34



Syntax and semantics of comparatives



Degree to which I love my husband

(12)max{d |love(dog)(me)(d)} > max{d ′|love(hubby)(me)(d ′)}

λd . love(dog)(me)(d)

I love our dog (d-much)

λp. max{d |p(d)} >max{d ′|love(hubby)(me)(d ′)}

more λd ′. love(hubby)(me)(d ′)

than I love my husband (d ′-much)11 / 34



Two different underlying structures:


:::::Degree

::to

:::::which

:::my

:::::::husband

::::loves

::::our

:::dog

I love our dog (d-much) more

::::::::::::::than my husband

:::::::::::loves our dog

::::::::(d ′-much)

(14) Degree to which I love our dog >:::::Degree

:::to

:::::which

:I:::love

:::my

:::::::husband

I love our dog (d-much) more

:::than

:::::I love

:::::::::::my husband

::::::::(d ′-much)

12 / 34



What is focus?

There are many focus-related phenomena. (???)

Example 1: Focusing particles (e.g., only , even)

(15) a. Mary {only/even} introduced [Sue]F to John.b. Mary {only/even} introduced Sue to [John]F .

Example 2: Question-answer congruence

(16) a. Who ate the cake?b. [Mary]F ate the cake.c. *Mary ate the [cake]F .

(17) a. What did Mary eat?b. *[Mary]F ate the cake.c. Mary ate the [cake]F .

13 / 34



What does focus do?

Focus introduces a set of alternatives. (?)

(18) a. Mary only introduced [Sue]F to John.b. A set of alternatives: {Sue, Bill, Tom, Amy, . . . }c. Focus semantic value of (a):

Mary introduced Sue to John,Mary introduced Bill to John,Mary introduced Tom to John,Mary introduced Amy to John,. . .

d. Focus semantic value of (a):

Mary introduced Sue to John,Mary introduced Bill to John,Mary introduced Tom to John,Mary introduced Amy to John,. . .

e. The meaning of (a):

Among the set of alternative propositions, ‘Maryintroduced Sue to John’ is true but not the others.

14 / 34



Why focus disambiguate the meaning of comparatives?

(19) [I]F love our dog more than my husband.


Degree to which my husband loves our dog

[I]F love our dog (d-much)⇓

Alternative set

more

than my husband loves our dog (d ′-much)I love our dog d-much,my husband loves our dog d-much,Marcin loves our dog d-much,Curt loves our dog d-much,. . .

⇑

⇐ MATCH!

15 / 34



Unavailable underlying structure

Why (21) does NOT mean (22)?


(22) Degree to which I love our dog

>Degree to which I love my husband

[I]F love our dog (d-much)⇓

Alternative set

more

than I love my husband (d ′-much)I love our dog d-much,my husband loves our dog d-much,Marcin loves our dog d-much,Curt loves our dog d-much,. . .

⇑

⇐ NO MATCH!

16 / 34



Q1: Why do some comparatives have more than onemeaning?

Structural ambiguity: Two different underlying structures

Q2: Why does focus affect the interpretation?

There is a matching requirement between the alternative setcreated by focus and the content of than-phrase.The focus alternative set reflects what is under considerationat the moment.The content of than-phrase should not be picking outsomething that is not included in such set, by virtue of thevery nature of comparatives.

17 / 34


Ambiguity and disambiguation in Japanese comparatives

Table of Contents

1 Introduction



4 Discussion

5 Conclusion

18 / 34




(23) Watashi-waI-top


inu-odog-acc

aishiteiru.love

‘I love our dog more than my husband.’ [Meaning (a) or (b)]

(24) Watashi-no-hoo-gaI-gen-hoo-nom


inu-odog-acc

aishiteiru.love

‘I love our dog more than my husband (loves our dog).’ [(a)]

(25) Watashi-waI-top


inu-no-hoo-odog-gen-hoo-acc

aishiteiru.love

‘I love our dog more than (I love) my husband.’ [(b)]

a. b.19 / 34



We’ve seen it before...

(26) I love our dog more than my husband. [Meaning (a) or(b)]

(27) [I]F love our dog more than my husband. [Meaning (a)]

(28) I love [our dog]F more than my husband. [Meaning (b)]

a. b.

Q3: Is the disambiguation by hoo in Japanese the samemechanism with the disambiguation by focus in English?Q3’: In over words, is hoo a focus marker?

⇒ Not quite.20 / 34



Can hoo function just like focus in English?

(29) A: What kind of ice cream do you like the best?B1: *[I]F like chocolate the best.B2: I like [chocolate]F the best.

(30) A1: Nani-aji-noWhat-flavor-gen

aisukuriimu-gaicecream-nom

ichibanmost

suki?like

‘What flavor of ice cream do you like the most?’B1: *Choko-no-hoo-ga

Chocolate-gen-hoo-nomichibanmost

suki.like

Intended: ‘I like chocolate the most.’B2: Choko-ga

Chocolate-nomichibanmost

suki.like

‘I like chocolate the most.’

21 / 34



Can hoo function just like focus in English?

(31) A: Choco-toChocolate-and

banira,vanilla

docchi-no-hoo-gawhich-gen-hoo-nom

suki?like

‘Which do you like better, chocolate or vanilla?’B: Choko-no-hoo-ga

Chocolate-gen-hoo-nomsuki.like

‘I like chocolate better.’

(32) (Situation: There are two handmade dishes, sushi and lasagna.)

A: KonoThis

osushi,sushi

Mary-gaMary-nom

tsukuttamade

rashiiI.hear

yo.SFP

‘I heard that Mary made this sushi.’B: Ja,

Well.thenrazania-no-hoo-walasagna-gen-hoo-top

dare-gawho-nom

tsukuttamade

no?Q

‘Who made the lasagna then?’A: Aa,

Ohrazania-no-hoo-walasagna-gen-hoo-top

John-gaJohn-nom

tsukuttamade

rashiiI.hear

yo.SFP

‘Oh, I heard that John made the lasagna.’

22 / 34



Hoo’s function

Introduces a presupposition that there are two salient things to becompared/contrasted in the discourse. (?)

What is presupposition?

A kind of information in the sentence “that is assumed by thespeaker to be shared by him and the hearer” (?)

23 / 34




Are these true or false?

(33) a. The president of the U.S. is visiting Japan from the23rd to 25th.

b. The president of the U.S. is visiting Williamstownfrom the 23rd to 25th.

c. The emperor of the U.S. is visiting Williamstownfrom the 23rd to 25th.

The NP has a presuppositional meaning that there is a uniqueNP salient in the discourse and known to the speaker and thehearer. (?)

(34) a. The party is on April 30th.b. There will be a party, which will be on April 30th.

24 / 34




(35) a. The emperor of the U.S. is visiting Williamstown today.→ There exists a unique emperor of the U.S.

b. The emperor of the U.S. is not visiting Williamstown today.→ There exists a unique emperor of the U.S.

c. Is the emperor of the U.S. visiting Williamstown today?→ There exists a unique emperor of the U.S.

d. If the emperor of the U.S. is visiting Williamstown today,there might be a traffic restriction.

→ There exists a unique emperor of the U.S.

Presuppositional meanings typically ‘survive’ under negation,question, if-clauses.

25 / 34



(36) a. John-waJohn-top

suupu-no-hoo-osoup-gen-hoo-acc

tanonda.ordered

‘John ordered the soup.’b. John-wa

John-topsuupu-no-hoo-wasoup-gen-hoo-top

tanoma-nakattaorder-didn’t

‘John didn’t order the soup.’c. John-wa

John-topsuupu-no-hoo-osoup-gen-hoo-acc

tanondaordered

no?Q

‘Did John order the soup?’d. Moshi

IfJohn-gaJohn-nom

suupu-no-hoo-osoup-gen-hoo-acc

tanomu-nara,order-cond

watashi-moI-also

sooso

suru.do

‘If John is going to order the soup, then I’ll do so too.’

These all presuppose that there are two choices in the discourse –the soup and something else.

26 / 34



How special is hoo?

Is a word like hoo exotic? Maybe not so much.

(37) a. Both cats have stripes.b. Neither cat has stripes.

Both and neither also presuppose that there are two thingssalient in the discourse.

In some sense, hoo shares this property with Englishdeterminers both and neither.

27 / 34


Discussion

Table of Contents

1 Introduction



4 Discussion

5 Conclusion

28 / 34


Discussion

Disambiguation by focus vs. by hoo


a. I love our dog more than my husband loves our dog.b. I love our dog more than I love my husband.

(39) The focus alternative set:I love our dog d-much,my husband loves our dog d-much,Marcin loves our dog d-much,Curt loves our dog d-much,. . .

Focus creates a set of alternatives.

The content of the than-phrase must be one of thepropositions in the focus alternative set.

29 / 34


Discussion


(40) Watashi-no-hoo-gaI-gen-hoo-nom


inu-odog-acc

aishiteiru.love

a. ‘I love our dog more than my husband loves our dog.’b. ‘I love our dog more than I love my husband.’

Just like focus, it creates a set of alternatives.

But unlike the focus alternatives, it is a two-membered set.

(41) The hoo alternative:

{I love our dog d-much,someone else loves our dog d-much

}

The content of the than-phrase in (40-a) “my husband loves ourdog” matches one of the two propositions in the alternative set.

But the content of the than-phrase in (40-b) “I love my husband”does not match either proposition in the alternative set.

30 / 34


Discussion


Similarities:

Both focus and hoo create a set of alternatives.

In both languages, the content of the than-phrase has to match oneof the members of the alternative set created in the main clause.

Differences:

Focus alternatives aren’t necessarily a two-membered set, butalternatives generated by hoo must be a two-membered set.

Focus marks new information in the answer, but hoo may not.

(42) (Situation: There are two handmade dishes, sushi and lasagna.)

A: Razania-no-hoo-waLasagna-gen-hoo-top

dare-gawho-nom

tsukuttamade

no?Q

‘Who made the lasagna?’B: Aa,

Ohrazania-no-hoo-walasagna-gen-hoo-top

John-gaJohn-nom

tsukuttamade

rashiiI.hear

yo.SFP

‘Oh, I heard that John made the lasagna.’31 / 34


Conclusion

Table of Contents

1 Introduction



4 Discussion

5 Conclusion

32 / 34


Conclusion

Conclusion

By positing two different underlying structures, we can explainthe two different meanings in ambiguous comparatives.

Although the alternative set created by focus and the onefrom the presupposition of hoo are not exactly the same, theynonetheless disambiguate comparative sentences in a similarway.

When considering ambiguity and disambiguation ofcomparative constructions in both languages, it is crucial toposit the underlying structures, which are not obvious justfrom the string of words in a sentence.

Although English and Japanese exhibit different linguisticproperties (not just for comparatives, but in general too), itwas shown that there is a fundamental similarity between thetwo languages at an abstract level.

33 / 34


Conclusion

Thank you!I hope you enjoyed!

Ai [email protected]

http://www.msu.edu/~matsuiai

34 / 34

http://www.msu.edu/~matsuiai


Reference

Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in GenerativeGrammar. Blackwell Publishers.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar.MIT Press.

Kadmon, Nirit. 2001. Formal Pragmatics: Semantics, Pragmatics,Presupposition and Focus. Blackwell Publishers.

Matsui, Ai & Yusuke Kubota. 2012. ‘Comparatives and contrastiveness:Semantics and pragmatics for Japanese Hoo comparatives’. InMatthew A. Tucker, Anie Thompson, Oliver Northrup, & RyanBennett (eds.), The Proceedings of the Fifth Formal Approaches toJapanese Linguistics, pp. 126–139. MIT Working Papers in Linguistis,Cambridge, MA.

Rooth, Mats. 1992. ‘A theory of focus interpretation’. Natural LanguageSemantics 1, 75–116.

von Stechow, Arnim. 1991. ‘Current issues in the theory of focus’. InArnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik: Eininternationales handbuch der zeitgenossischen forschung (Semantics:An International Handbook of Contemporary Research), pp. 804–825.Walter de Gruyter.

34 / 34

Date post:	11-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	8 times
Download:	0 times

The meaning of comparative constructions in …matsuiai/handouts/20140425_comparatives.pdfThe...

Documents