bare bones of the data - university of calgary in...

Bare Bones of the Data

Certain dialects of American English allow a ConditionB-violating pronoun in a non-argument position:



Example

I whittled me a stick.

I love me some chowder.



Example



Most literature on this phenomenon follows one (or more) ofthree paths:



Example




1 Trying to explain the binding facts that license this pronoun.



Example





2 Trying to understand the thematic role (or lack thereof) forthis pronoun.



Example





2 Trying to understand the thematic role (or lack thereof) forthis pronoun.

3 Trying to determine the meaning contribution of the pronoun.

A New Angle on the Issue


Amidst all this, there is one contrast with “standard” Englishthat is overlooked:



Example


# I love some chowder.



Example


# I love some chowder.

Question

What is it about the presence of a personal dative that licenses anotherwise unacceptable utterance?

Outline

1 The Issue

2 Prior Analyses

3 A Parallel Case

4 Proposal

5 Conclusion

Further Constraints: Wh-Interactions


The PD pronoun cannot be questioned:



Example

Who did I whittle a stick (for)?



Example


Nor can the direct object be questioned:



Example


Nor can the direct object be questioned:

Example

* What would you love you (some (of))?

* What did Bill eat him (some (of))?

Further Constraints: Wh-Interactions (cont)


Subject questions are fine:



Example

Who loves them some Wonder Woman?! nietnietniet.tumblr.com

Who loves them some robot? mirzmaster.wordpress.com



Example



As are relative clauses:



Example




Example

....someone who loves him some mountain dew...www.fearlessphotographers.com/



Example




Example

....someone who loves him some mountain dew...www.fearlessphotographers.com/

There is some restriction on the direct object.

Further Constraints: Indefinite Complements


The PD Construction is only felicitous with in conjunctionwith weak determiners:



Example

She ate her a/some/four pies.

* She ate her the/every/each pie.



Example



But:



Example



But:

Example

I love me some him. (Horn 2008)

I love me some Jiminy Glick. (McLachlan 2010)



Example



But:

Example

I love me some him. (Horn 2008)

I love me some Jiminy Glick. (McLachlan 2010)

Horn takes this to be evidence that the quantifier issemantically bleached, while McLachlan reduces the person toa consumable commodity.

Binding Facts

Binding Facts

Obligatorily co-referential with the sentential subject, the PDpronoun is a curiosity from the perspective of Binding Theory.

Binding Facts


A Condition-A compliant re-write either results in a meaningchange or infelicity:

Binding Facts



Example

I whittled myself a stick.

# I like myself some chowder.

Binding Facts



Example


# I like myself some chowder.

This is not just a case of exempt anaphora, there is somethingfairly strict restricting the usage.

Conroy’s SE Anaphor Account


Conroy(2007) develops an account arguing that the PDpronoun is an example of an SE anaphor in English.



Specifically, she follows Reuland(2001) in the claim that SEanaphors receive case but no θ-role from the predicate.




Part of her evidence is that under ellipsis, the PD pronounonly has a sloppy interpretation:





Example

I bought me a pair of shoes, and Nell did too.





Example

I bought me a pair of shoes, and Nell did too.

However, there are no further details on the syntax of thepronoun, and this alone does not account for all of theconstraints.

Applicative Analyses


Earlier works try to liken the PD pronoun to a double objectconstruction.



More recently, several analyses move toward treating the PDpronoun as an applicative.




Following Pylkkanen, applicatives can be broken into twotypes:





Low Applicative: Takes DP complement, establishes possessionrelation between arguments.





Low Applicative: Takes DP complement, establishes possessionrelation between arguments.High Applicative: Takes VP complement, establishesbene/male-factive relation between ApplO and event.






At first glance then, it stands to reason that the PD pronounmight be some sort of high applicative.






At first glance then, it stands to reason that the PD pronounmight be some sort of high applicative.

Haddad(2010) takes this approach, positing overt verbmovement of the verb to ApplP in order to satisfy arequirement that the PD pronoun cliticizes to the verb.

High or Low?

High or Low?

Hutchinson and Armstrong(2010) take the opposite approach,and treat the PD as a low applicative, following the reasoningthat it is similar to a double object construction.

High or Low?


This approach has the virtue of explaining the requirementthat a PD construction have a direct object.

High or Low?



Forces the postulation of a third type of applicative with thesemantics of high, but the syntax of low.

High or Low?




Their examples are all for agentive predicates, application oftheir form to a predicate like love yields a semantics whereinsatisfaction comes from loving.

High or Low?




Their examples are all for agentive predicates, application oftheir form to a predicate like love yields a semantics whereinsatisfaction comes from loving.

Question

Why would a sentence with an indefinite theme be licensed by theaddition of an applied argument?

Interpreting the Personal Dative


The third line of inquiry regarding the PD is determining itsmeaning contribution.



Haddad treats it as a speaker-oriented idiom, followingWebelhuth and Dannenberg(2006).




Bosse et al. (2010) propose the existence of an affectedexperiencer head introducing non-selected arguments, addinga conventional implicature regarding the type of experience.





This C.I. analysis parallels Horn’s claims that the PD isnon-asserted content, and is adapted by Hutchinson andArmstrong.





This C.I. analysis parallels Horn’s claims that the PD isnon-asserted content, and is adapted by Hutchinson andArmstrong.

While the underlying syntax of the PD still appears open fordebate, an idiom seems likewise unlikely to be a licenser.

Outline

1 The Issue

2 Prior Analyses

3 A Parallel Case

4 Proposal

5 Conclusion

Evaluating Singular Indefinites


Zaroukian and Beller(In Press) opens with the followingcontrast:



Example

John likes cookies.

# John likes a cookie



Example

John likes cookies.


They note that certain structures ameliorate this singularindefinite:



Example

John likes cookies.


They note that certain structures ameliorate this singularindefinite:

Example

John likes a cookie after dinner.

John likes a good cookie.

John likes a cookie as much as the next person.

Situation Restriction


Zaroukian and Beller describe the common element in theirobservations as a “restriction on situations”.



The situations in question involve covert HAVE predicates:




Example

John likes [[PRO HAVE a cookie] after dinner].




Example


The modifier induces the HAVE-clause interpretation.




Example



The HAVE-clause interpretation supports the singularindefinite.




Example



The HAVE-clause interpretation supports the singularindefinite.

The Takeaway

Can something similar be proposed for the personal dative?

Outline

1 The Issue

2 Prior Analyses

3 A Parallel Case

4 Proposal

5 Conclusion

Taking Stock

Taking Stock

The PD pronoun somehow licenses an otherwise infelicitoussentence.

Taking Stock


The binding theoretic status is unresolved, but the sloppyreading is pretty robust.

Taking Stock



Applicative analyses contradict each other.

Taking Stock




Meaning-wise a conventional implicature seems to have moresupport than idiomaticity.

Taking Stock





There is a close parallel in the evaluation of singularindefinites.

Taking Stock





There is a close parallel in the evaluation of singularindefinites.

Moving Forward

Defining the way in which the PD pronoun can be seen asproviding the same sort of situational restriction.

Quantification and Restriction

Recall the constraint that the PD construction must contain a(weak) quantified direct object:



Example

Mary would love her some flowers.

* Mary would love her flowers.(Webelhuth and Dannenberg 2006)



Example



This necessity for quantification can be seen as providing afirst sense of a situational restriction.



Example



This necessity for quantification can be seen as providing afirst sense of a situational restriction.

The quantifier is not bleached, rather it provides a necessaryfirst ingredient to defining the underlying structure.

Event Decomposition

Event Decomposition

Yoshikawa(2003) makes the claim that measured (quantified)arguments are arguments of achievements.

Event Decomposition


This can be adapted to the idea given in Truswell(2007)(credited to Dowty) that accomplishments can bedecomposed into activities and achievements:

Event Decomposition



Example

I whittled a stick.∃e ∃e.(whittle(e1) ∧ agent(e1, spkr) ∧become(∃x .(stick(x))(e2) ∧ cause(e1, e2))

Event Decomposition



Example

I whittled a stick.∃e ∃e.(whittle(e1) ∧ agent(e1, spkr) ∧become(∃x .(stick(x))(e2) ∧ cause(e1, e2))

This makes the verb type 〈e〈e〈s〈s,t〉〉〉〉

Decomposing the Evaluative


love is ambiguous between the conventional stative, and adecomposed form:



Example

JloveK = λPλyλxλeλs.love(s) ∧ experiencer(s,x) ∧P(y)(e)∧ source(s,e)



Example


This is an even more complex type, with an additional type〈e〈s,t〉〉 argument, a covert predicate:



Example



Example

JconsumeK = λzλe.consume(e) ∧ theme(e,z)



Example



Example

JconsumeK = λzλe.consume(e) ∧ theme(e,z)

Putting these together, we have the same type as before.However, there is no overt evidence for this alternate form oflove.

Formalising the Personal Dative


The Personal Dative is taken to be a Bosse et al. typeexperiencer of the type of satisfaction relation used byHutchinson and Armstrong.



However, it is a property of the secondary predicate, thoughit contains a variable which is bound by the same binder asthe primary experiencer.




It takes this alternative form of love as an argument (but not“standard” love).




It takes this alternative form of love as an argument (but not“standard” love).

whittle could be further decomposed to a generalisedsecondary event to yield the same type.

Meaning Contrast and Binding


Conroy notes a meaning contrast between the following:



Example





Example



In the reflexive case, the speaker gains a benefit (possession)from the whittling.



Example




In the PD case, there is a sense of satisfaction from thecreative act.



Example




In the PD case, there is a sense of satisfaction from thecreative act.

Of the two decomposed events, one is more “tangible” thanthe other. The activity is observable in the real world, whereasthe event of becoming into existence is less concrete.

Putting it Together

Putting it Together

Adding the pronouns to the earlier decomposition yields thefollowing:

Putting it Together


Example

∃e ∃e.(whittle(e1) ∧ agent(e1, spkr) ∧benefit(e1, spkr) ∧ become(∃x .(stick(x)), e2) ∧cause(e1, e2))

∃e ∃e.(whittle(e1) ∧ agent(e1, spkr) ∧become(∃x .(stick(x)), e2) ∧ cause(e1, e2)):∃e′.satisfaction(e′) ∧ experiencer(e′,spkr) ∧source(e′,e2)

Putting it Together


Example

∃e ∃e.(whittle(e1) ∧ agent(e1, spkr) ∧benefit(e1, spkr) ∧ become(∃x .(stick(x)), e2) ∧cause(e1, e2))

∃e ∃e.(whittle(e1) ∧ agent(e1, spkr) ∧become(∃x .(stick(x)), e2) ∧ cause(e1, e2)):∃e′.satisfaction(e′) ∧ experiencer(e′,spkr) ∧source(e′,e2)

The choice of pronoun thus boils down to simple reflexivity ofevents.

Back to Evaluatives

Back to Evaluatives

The same works for love:

Back to Evaluatives


Example


∃s ∃e. love(s) ∧ experience(s, spkr) ∧ (consume(e) ∧some(x)[chowder(x)][theme(e, x)] ∧ source(s,e)):∃e′.satisfaction(e′) ∧ experiencer(e′,spkr) ∧source(e′,e)

Back to Evaluatives


Example



By adding the CI to the secondary predicate, there is overtevidence for the predicate.

Back to Evaluatives


Example




The speaker is not deriving satisfaction from the state ofloving, but rather the event causing that state.

Back to Evaluatives


Example




The speaker is not deriving satisfaction from the state ofloving, but rather the event causing that state.

Once again, a non-reflexive predicate yields a non-reflexivepronoun.

Conclusion

Conclusion

Through this decomposition into non-reflexive events, theapparent Condition B violation is accounted for.

Conclusion


The decomposition is motivated by correspondence between ameasure argument and an underlying achievement.

Conclusion



The PD is part of a conventional implicature that builds fromthe secondary predicate.

Conclusion



The PD is part of a conventional implicature that builds fromthe secondary predicate.

Finally, the inability to extract the PD pronoun follows fromthe Truswell(2007) claim that extraction is not permittedfrom subsidiary properties of secondary predicates.

References and Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Larry Horn for many insightful comments and examples, and thanks also to Bob Frank, Chung-hye Han,

Nancy Hedberg, Susannah Kirby, Noureddine Elouazizi, and Emrah Gorgulu for their comments on an earlier

version of this work. This work is supported by SSHRC Postdoc Fellowship 756-2010-0677. All errors are my own.

Bosse, Solveig, Benjamin Bruening, and Masahiro Yamada. 2010.Affected experiencers.To appear in NLLT.

Conroy, Anastasia M. 2007.The personal dative in Appalachian English as a reflexive pronoun.University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 16:63–88.

Haddad, Youssef A. 2010.Why personal datives are not anaphors.Unpublished Manuscript, November 2010.

Hutchinson, Corinne, and Grant Armstrong. 2010.The syntax and semantics of personal datives in appalacian english.Draft Manuscript.

McLachlan, Liela Rotschy. 2010.I love me some Jiminy Glick: The semantic contribution of ‘some’ in personal dative constructions.In Proceedings of the Arizona Linguistics Circle 4 Conference.

Reuland, Eric. 2001.Primitives of binding.Linguistic Inquiry 32:439–492.

Truswell, Robert. 2007.Extraction from adjuncts and the structure of events.Lingua 117:1355–1377.

Webelhuth, Gert, and Clare J. Dannenberg. 2006.Southern American English personal datives: The theoretical significance of dialectal variation.American Speech 81:31–55.

Yoshikawa, Hiroshi. 2003.A semantic analysis of accomplishments on the basis of event semantics.English Linguistics 20:535–561.

Zaroukian, Erin, and Charley Beller. In Press.Evaluating singular indefinites.In Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL 2011).

Hutchinson and Armstrong up close

Example

JApplsatK = λxλyλf .f (e, x)∧ theme(e, x):(∃e′)[satisfaction(e′) ∧ experiencer(e′, y) ∧(∀e′′)[f (e′′) → source(e′′, e′)]]

This is meant to have a similar operation as a low applicative,but with a distinct semantics.

They are forced to say that the satisfaction relation isinherently reflexive, and thus no need to control for bindingwith the eventual agent.

Yields a counterintuitive result when used with love

Unclear how this will answer the licensing question.

Showing the Math

Under my analysis, the PD will be introduced by an operatorof type...deep breath...〈〈〈e〈s,t〉〉〈e〈e〈s〈s,t〉〉〉〉〉〈〈e〈s,t〉〉〈e〈e〈s〈s,t〉〉〉〉〉〉

The PD does not add any new arguments to the expression, itworks with and re-binds everything that is present.

Example

JPDK = λQλPλxλyλsλe.Q(P , x , y , s, e) : ∃e′.satisfaction(e′)∧ experiencer(e′, y) ∧ source(e′, e)

With one lambda binding both instances of the subject, wecan account for the sloppy reading.

Because they are not, strictly speaking, coarguments, wefurther account for the non-reflexive.

bare bones of the data - university of calgary in...

Documents