Pomona College

A semantics for interjective whatCUSP 5 @ UCSD

Jesse A. Harris

October, 27 2012

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 1

Introduction

Phenomena

(1) There’s been what? A dozen and a half murders since I’vebeen here. (Hammett, 1929)

(2) You think that what, twenty deserters from the Sudanesearmy are going to come back and make Sudan aCommunist nation? (Eggers, 2006)

(3) I recognize you though it’s been, what, 30 years?(Midsomer Murders Death’s Shadow, c. 1999)

(4) Woody’s what? 73? he’ll be writing this stuU ’til he’swhat? 95? so we might as well get comfortable . . .Comments on Popwatch about a Woody Allen Vlm, c. 2009

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/05/whatever-works.html

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 2

Introduction

Phenomena

(1) There’s been what? A dozen and a half murders since I’vebeen here. (Hammett, 1929)

(2) You think that what, twenty deserters from the Sudanesearmy are going to come back and make Sudan aCommunist nation? (Eggers, 2006)

(3) I recognize you though it’s been, what, 30 years?(Midsomer Murders Death’s Shadow, c. 1999)

(4) Woody’s what? 73? he’ll be writing this stuU ’til he’swhat? 95? so we might as well get comfortable . . .Comments on Popwatch about a Woody Allen Vlm, c. 2009

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/05/whatever-works.html

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 2

Introduction

Phenomena

(1) There’s been what? A dozen and a half murders since I’vebeen here. (Hammett, 1929)

(2) You think that what, twenty deserters from the Sudanesearmy are going to come back and make Sudan aCommunist nation? (Eggers, 2006)

(3) I recognize you though it’s been, what, 30 years?(Midsomer Murders Death’s Shadow, c. 1999)

(4) Woody’s what? 73? he’ll be writing this stuU ’til he’swhat? 95? so we might as well get comfortable . . .Comments on Popwatch about a Woody Allen Vlm, c. 2009

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/05/whatever-works.html

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 2

Introduction

Phenomena

(1) There’s been what? A dozen and a half murders since I’vebeen here. (Hammett, 1929)

(2) You think that what, twenty deserters from the Sudanesearmy are going to come back and make Sudan aCommunist nation? (Eggers, 2006)

(3) I recognize you though it’s been, what, 30 years?(Midsomer Murders Death’s Shadow, c. 1999)

(4) Woody’s what? 73? he’ll be writing this stuU ’til he’swhat? 95? so we might as well get comfortable . . .Comments on Popwatch about a Woody Allen Vlm, c. 2009

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/05/whatever-works.html

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 2

Introduction

Phenomena

(1) There’s been what? A dozen and a half murders since I’vebeen here. (Hammett, 1929)

(2) You think that what, twenty deserters from the Sudanesearmy are going to come back and make Sudan aCommunist nation? (Eggers, 2006)

(3) I recognize you though it’s been, what, 30 years?(Midsomer Murders Death’s Shadow, c. 1999)

(4) Woody’s what? 73? he’ll be writing this stuU ’til he’swhat? 95? so we might as well get comfortable . . .Comments on Popwatch about a Woody Allen Vlm, c. 2009

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/05/whatever-works.html

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 2

Introduction

(4) I like – Governor Palin.I’ve met her. I knowher. She [is an]attractive candidate.But based on herbackground, she’d onlybeen governor for,what, two years. Idon’t think she passedthat test.

Dick Cheney, July 30, 2012

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 3

Introduction

(4) I like – Governor Palin.I’ve met her. I knowher. She [is an]attractive candidate.But based on herbackground, she’d onlybeen governor for,what, two years. Idon’t think she passedthat test.

Dick Cheney, July 30, 2012

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 3

Introduction

Terminology

(4) But based on her background, she’d only been governorfor, what, two years.

I Instances of interest demarcated as whatI Any other uses of the word ‘what’ demarcated as whatI The constituent that what precedes called the

complement of what – or α for short

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 4

Introduction

Outline

1. Core description of what

1. Syntactic licensing

2. Prosodic realization

2. Towards a meaning of whatThree intuitive hypotheses

1. Rising declarative

2. Question-answer pair3. Approximation marker

3.1 Alternative semantics3.2 Inquisitive semantics

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 5

Introduction

Outline

1. Core description of what

1. Syntactic licensing

2. Prosodic realization

2. Towards a meaning of whatThree intuitive hypotheses

1. Rising declarative

2. Question-answer pair3. Approximation marker

3.1 Alternative semantics3.2 Inquisitive semantics

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 5

Introduction

Outline

1. Core description of what

1. Syntactic licensing

2. Prosodic realization

2. Towards a meaning of whatThree intuitive hypotheses

1. Rising declarative

2. Question-answer pair3. Approximation marker

3.1 Alternative semantics3.2 Inquisitive semantics

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 5

Introduction

Outline

1. Core description of what

1. Syntactic licensing

2. Prosodic realization

2. Towards a meaning of whatThree intuitive hypotheses

1. Rising declarative

2. Question-answer pair3. Approximation marker

3.1 Alternative semantics3.2 Inquisitive semantics

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 5

Introduction

Caveat

(5) So what, my father was Dr Mengele?(Heroes, Season 3)

I Sarcastic, aggressive, or hostile uses ofwhat are assumed to be qualitativelydistinct from the approximative use ofinterest here.

I These uses typically appear sentenceinitially, but approximative what neverdoes (Dehé and Kavalova, 2006).

Alfred E. Neumann

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 6

Core properties

Licensing

(6) Number phrases

a. You’ve been here for, what, two years? (DP)

b. You’ve been here, what, for two years? (PP)

c. You’ve, what, run 12 marathons so far? (VP)

Dehé and Kavalova (2006)

I Appears with number phrases in 95%of two corpora of British English

I Propose that what is an appositivelinearized via Relevance Theory

I Only procedural meaning for what

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 7

Core properties

Licensing

(6) Number phrases

a. You’ve been here for, what, two years? (DP)

b. You’ve been here, what, for two years? (PP)

c. You’ve, what, run 12 marathons so far? (VP)

Dehé and Kavalova (2006)

I Appears with number phrases in 95%of two corpora of British English

I Propose that what is an appositivelinearized via Relevance Theory

I Only procedural meaning for what

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 7

Core properties

Licensing

(6) Number phrases

a. You’ve been here for, what, two years? (DP)

b. You’ve been here, what, for two years? (PP)

c. You’ve, what, run 12 marathons so far? (VP)

Dehé and Kavalova (2006)

I Appears with number phrases in 95%of two corpora of British English

I Propose that what is an appositivelinearized via Relevance Theory

I Only procedural meaning for what

298 N I C O L E D E H E A N D YO R DA N K A K AVA L OVA

The parenthetical relates on the surface to the node dominating the number in thesyntactic host structure. In this way, its feature is satisfied by matching against thecorresponding feature in the host. Note again that this is a unidirectional process inthe sense that it is the feature on the parenthetical that needs to get satisfied, not thefeature on the host. As a result, the parenthetical appears in a linear position related tothe numeral in the host clause. The feature-matching process is illustrated in (22).

(22) XP

X YP

Y ZPF

feature XP matching NUMF …

what[F-NUM]

Let us now see how this approach can account for the particular distribution of what.Most importantly, it explains why what is spelled out in a position related to the nodedominating the numeral. Assume for the sake of argumentation that what is attachedto a node lower in the structure. In this case, its [F-NUM] feature would have to becopied up to find the matching NUM-feature, or the NUM feature inherent to the hoststructure would have to be copied down in order to be reached by the feature on theparenthetical. We dismiss both options. Copying the feature on the parenthetical up inthe tree would mean more effort and can therefore be ruled out for economy reasons.The second option is ruled out by the very nature of the operation Merge (along thelines of Chomsky, 1995: 243), as well as by the Inclusiveness condition (Chomsky,1995: 228). Merge holds that the object K formed by merging two objects ! and " isconstituted from these two items. Inclusiveness holds that the syntactic properties of anonterminal node are fully recoverable from the structure it dominates. A nonterminalnode can therefore never contain a feature copied down in the tree.

Now imagine that what gets associated with a higher node in the tree. In this case,either the selectional feature on the parenthetical would have to be copied down toreach the matching feature inherent to the host structure or the host structure featurewould have to be copied up. Both options are ruled out for the same reasons that alsoprohibited attachment of the parenthetical to a lower node in the tree.

This then leaves us with the original option that what gets associated with thenode immediately dominating the numeral. Theoretically, it could now be spelledout in three different positions: (i) before the numeral (where it actually appears),(ii) immediately following the numeral, or (iii) following the whole constituent (herelabelled ZP). Consequently, we are left with at least two open questions concerningthe distribution of parenthetical what that we cannot answer along syntactic lines. Thefirst question is: why does what have to be spelled out in the position preceding thenumeral, but cannot appear in any other position related to the same node in the host

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 7

Core properties

Licensing

(7) it’s Vlled with what, whip cream . . . and strawberriesand something (Switchboard)

(8) I haven’t seen you since, what, Lebanon? Bosnia?(Burn Notice: Season 3, episode 1 @8:00)

(9) A. It’s been what, a week? And it’s like when I’m notwith you, I’m out of focus. How have you done thisto me? I’m scared. I’m fucking scared.

B. I love you, too.(Torchwood: Season 1, episode 10 @41:50)

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 8

Core properties

Switchboard corpus studyI Switchboard fragment distributed in NLTKI ClassiVed Vrst 2,000 from over 7,500 hitsI Found 18 clear examples, classiVed according to

1. Syntactic category of complement2. Whether the utterance elicited a response from the other

participant

NP PP Number Total

Response 7 1 3 11 (61%)No response 0 0 7 7 (39%)

7 (39%) 1 (< 1%) 10 (60%) 18 (100%)

Table: Categorization of 18 instances of the what-marker found inthe Switchboard corpus

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 9

Core properties

Switchboard corpus studyI Switchboard fragment distributed in NLTKI ClassiVed Vrst 2,000 from over 7,500 hitsI Found 18 clear examples, classiVed according to

1. Syntactic category of complement2. Whether the utterance elicited a response from the other

participant

NP PP Number Total

Response 7 1 3 11 (61%)No response 0 0 7 7 (39%)

7 (39%) 1 (< 1%) 10 (60%) 18 (100%)

Table: Categorization of 18 instances of the what-marker found inthe Switchboard corpus

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 9

Core properties

Switchboard corpus studyI Switchboard fragment distributed in NLTKI ClassiVed Vrst 2,000 from over 7,500 hitsI Found 18 clear examples, classiVed according to

1. Syntactic category of complement2. Whether the utterance elicited a response from the other

participant

NP PP Number Total

Response 7 1 3 11 (61%)No response 0 0 7 7 (39%)

7 (39%) 1 (< 1%) 10 (60%) 18 (100%)

Table: Categorization of 18 instances of the what-marker found inthe Switchboard corpus

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 9

Core properties

Switchboard corpus studyI Switchboard fragment distributed in NLTKI ClassiVed Vrst 2,000 from over 7,500 hitsI Found 18 clear examples, classiVed according to

1. Syntactic category of complement2. Whether the utterance elicited a response from the other

participant

NP PP Number Total

Response 7 1 3 11 (61%)No response 0 0 7 7 (39%)

7 (39%) 1 (< 1%) 10 (60%) 18 (100%)

Table: Categorization of 18 instances of the what-marker found inthe Switchboard corpus

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 9

Core properties

Switchboard corpus studyI Switchboard fragment distributed in NLTKI ClassiVed Vrst 2,000 from over 7,500 hitsI Found 18 clear examples, classiVed according to

1. Syntactic category of complement2. Whether the utterance elicited a response from the other

participant

NP PP Number Total

Response 7 1 3 11 (61%)No response 0 0 7 7 (39%)

7 (39%) 1 (< 1%) 10 (60%) 18 (100%)

Table: Categorization of 18 instances of the what-marker found inthe Switchboard corpus

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 9

Core properties

Switchboard corpus studyI Switchboard fragment distributed in NLTKI ClassiVed Vrst 2,000 from over 7,500 hitsI Found 18 clear examples, classiVed according to

1. Syntactic category of complement2. Whether the utterance elicited a response from the other

participant

NP PP Number Total

Response 7 1 3 11 (61%)No response 0 0 7 7 (39%)

7 (39%) 1 (< 1%) 10 (60%) 18 (100%)

Table: Categorization of 18 instances of the what-marker found inthe Switchboard corpus

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 9

Core properties

Licensing

I Any account of what must extend to non-numerical casesI Licensed by discourse, not syntactic factors

Pre-theoretical meaning of what

I Signals hesitation and uncertainty about the precisevalue of its complement

I Part of a repair strategy:• Start planning an utterance without having a complete

message in mind• Realization that the precise value of element in focus is

unknown

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 10

Core properties

Prosodic realization

Central prosodic properties of what

1. what either produced with a low (L%) or low-fall (H- L%)boundary tone

2. what often oUset from its host by pauses, especially onthe right boundary

3. Complement α is typically - but not always -accompanied by a rising, question like tune at the end

4. α usually contains an element in focal prominence

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 11

Core properties

Prosodic realization

Central prosodic properties of what

1. what either produced with a low (L%) or low-fall (H- L%)boundary tone

2. what often oUset from its host by pauses, especially onthe right boundary

3. Complement α is typically - but not always -accompanied by a rising, question like tune at the end

4. α usually contains an element in focal prominence

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 11

Core properties

Prosodic realization

Central prosodic properties of what

1. what either produced with a low (L%) or low-fall (H- L%)boundary tone

2. what often oUset from its host by pauses, especially onthe right boundary

3. Complement α is typically - but not always -accompanied by a rising, question like tune at the end

4. α usually contains an element in focal prominence

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 11

Core properties

Prosodic realization

Central prosodic properties of what

1. what either produced with a low (L%) or low-fall (H- L%)boundary tone

2. what often oUset from its host by pauses, especially onthe right boundary

3. Complement α is typically - but not always -accompanied by a rising, question like tune at the end

4. α usually contains an element in focal prominence

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 11

Core properties

Prosodic realization

Central prosodic properties of what

1. what either produced with a low (L%) or low-fall (H- L%)boundary tone

2. what often oUset from its host by pauses, especially onthe right boundary

3. Complement α is typically - but not always -accompanied by a rising, question like tune at the end

4. α usually contains an element in focal prominence

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 11

Core properties

L% H* L- H%

Sir Mathis here we are on thee what twenty-third floor

1 1 1 2 3 1 4

<long>

H- L% H* L%

The government is is what dictating at that stage

1 1 2 3 2

<disf> <pau> <highly emphasized> <pause>

(Hat tip to Radek Simik for these BBC examples)

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 12

Core properties

Description summary

Syntactic properties

1. Syntactic freedom

2. Often appears with number words, but not exclusively so

Prosodic properties

1. The what element receives a fall or low fall contour

2. Usually followed by a typical question rise

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 13

Core properties

Description summary

Syntactic properties

1. Syntactic freedom

2. Often appears with number words, but not exclusively so

Prosodic properties

1. The what element receives a fall or low fall contour

2. Usually followed by a typical question rise

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 13

Core properties

Description summary

Syntactic properties

1. Syntactic freedom

2. Often appears with number words, but not exclusively so

Prosodic properties

1. The what element receives a fall or low fall contour

2. Usually followed by a typical question rise

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 13

Semantics

Three hypotheses for semantics

H1: what as a rising declarativeUtterances with what are a species of rising declarative à laGunlogson (2001).

H2: what as QA pairUtterances with what are composed of an in-situ questionfollowed by a best-guess answer.

H3: what as approximativeInter-sentential what functions as a planned interjectivewhich conventionally implicates Speaker uncertainty.

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 14

Semantics

Three hypotheses for semantics

H1: what as a rising declarativeUtterances with what are a species of rising declarative à laGunlogson (2001).

H2: what as QA pairUtterances with what are composed of an in-situ questionfollowed by a best-guess answer.

H3: what as approximativeInter-sentential what functions as a planned interjectivewhich conventionally implicates Speaker uncertainty.

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 14

Semantics

Three hypotheses for semantics

H1: what as a rising declarativeUtterances with what are a species of rising declarative à laGunlogson (2001).

H2: what as QA pairUtterances with what are composed of an in-situ questionfollowed by a best-guess answer.

H3: what as approximativeInter-sentential what functions as a planned interjectivewhich conventionally implicates Speaker uncertainty.

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 14

Semantics

Three hypotheses for semantics

H1: what as a rising declarativeUtterances with what are a species of rising declarative à laGunlogson (2001).

H2: what as QA pairUtterances with what are composed of an in-situ questionfollowed by a best-guess answer.

H3: what as approximativeInter-sentential what functions as a planned interjectivewhich conventionally implicates Speaker uncertainty.

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 14

Semantics

Three hypotheses for semantics

H1: what as a rising declarativeUtterances with what are a species of rising declarative à laGunlogson (2001).

H2: what as QA pairUtterances with what are composed of an in-situ questionfollowed by a best-guess answer.

H3: what as approximativeInter-sentential what functions as a planned interjectivewhich conventionally implicates Speaker uncertainty.

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 14

Semantics

H1: what as rising declarative

Contextual bias conditionRising declaratives can only be used as questions in contextswhere the Addressee is already publicly committed to theproposition expressed.

(10) A: There’s a leopard in the living room.

B’s response:

a. ? Is there a leopard in the living room?

b. There’s a leopard in the living room?

c. # There’s what, a leopard in the living room?

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 15

Semantics

H1: what as rising declarative

Contextual bias conditionRising declaratives can only be used as questions in contextswhere the Addressee is already publicly committed to theproposition expressed.

(10) A: There’s a leopard in the living room.

B’s response:

a. ? Is there a leopard in the living room?

b. There’s a leopard in the living room?

c. # There’s what, a leopard in the living room?

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 15

Semantics

H1: what as rising declarative

Contextual bias conditionRising declaratives can only be used as questions in contextswhere the Addressee is already publicly committed to theproposition expressed.

(10) A: There’s a leopard in the living room.

B’s response:

a. ? Is there a leopard in the living room?

b. There’s a leopard in the living room?

c. # There’s what, a leopard in the living room?

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 15

Semantics

H1: what as rising declarative

Contextual bias conditionRising declaratives can only be used as questions in contextswhere the Addressee is already publicly committed to theproposition expressed.

(10) A: There’s a leopard in the living room.

B’s response:

a. ? Is there a leopard in the living room?

b. There’s a leopard in the living room?

c. # There’s what, a leopard in the living room?

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 15

Semantics

H1: what as rising declarative

Contextual bias conditionRising declaratives can only be used as questions in contextswhere the Addressee is already publicly committed to theproposition expressed.

(11) A: I know what this is (smugly holding up fruit).

B’s response:

a. Is that a persimmon?

b. # That’s a persimmon?

c. That’s what, a persimmon?

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 16

Semantics

H1: what as rising declarative

Contextual bias conditionRising declaratives can only be used as questions in contextswhere the Addressee is already publicly committed to theproposition expressed.

(11) A: I know what this is (smugly holding up fruit).

B’s response:

a. Is that a persimmon?

b. # That’s a persimmon?

c. That’s what, a persimmon?

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 16

Semantics

H1: what as rising declarative

Contextual bias conditionRising declaratives can only be used as questions in contextswhere the Addressee is already publicly committed to theproposition expressed.

(11) A: I know what this is (smugly holding up fruit).

B’s response:

a. Is that a persimmon?

b. # That’s a persimmon?

c. That’s what, a persimmon?

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 16

Semantics

H1: what as rising declarative

Contextual bias conditionRising declaratives can only be used as questions in contextswhere the Addressee is already publicly committed to theproposition expressed.

(11) A: I know what this is (smugly holding up fruit).

B’s response:

a. Is that a persimmon?

b. # That’s a persimmon?

c. That’s what, a persimmon?

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 16

Semantics

H1: what as rising declarative

Speaker uncertaintyWhile rising declaratives target an Addressee’s publiccommitment, utterances with what express the uncertaincommitments of the Speaker.

I In crucial contexts, utterances with what pattern notwith rising declaratives but with questions.

I Perhaps they are QA pairs?

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 17

Semantics

H2: what as QA pairQA pairTreat utterances with what as an in-situ question, followed bya mandatory best guess answer.

(12) You’ve been here, what, two years?

a. You’ve been here what?

b. Two years?

I Simple, reducing semantics to questions.I Two steps

1. Introduce the question2. Introduce a fragment answer

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 18

Semantics

H2: what as QA pairQA pairTreat utterances with what as an in-situ question, followed bya mandatory best guess answer.

(12) You’ve been here, what, two years?

a. You’ve been here what?

b. Two years?

I Simple, reducing semantics to questions.I Two steps

1. Introduce the question2. Introduce a fragment answer

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 18

Semantics

H2: what as QA pairQA pairTreat utterances with what as an in-situ question, followed bya mandatory best guess answer.

(12) You’ve been here, what, two years?

a. You’ve been here what?

b. Two years?

I Simple, reducing semantics to questions.I Two steps

1. Introduce the question2. Introduce a fragment answer

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 18

Semantics

H2: what as QA pairQA pairTreat utterances with what as an in-situ question, followed bya mandatory best guess answer.

(12) You’ve been here, what, two years?

a. You’ve been here what?

b. Two years?

I Simple, reducing semantics to questions.I Two steps

1. Introduce the question2. Introduce a fragment answer

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 18

Semantics

H2: what as QA pair: Issues

QA pairTreat utterances with what as an in-situ question, followed bya mandatory best guess answer.

1. Expect a rising intonation on what, and not a low fall(Prosody issue)

2. Unclear why best guess answer is required, and why ittypically gets a rising tune (Licensing issue).

3. Doesn’t straightforwardly account for the approximativemeaning (Core meaning issue).

More on these issues in Appendix I.

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 19

Semantics

H2: what as QA pair: Issues

QA pairTreat utterances with what as an in-situ question, followed bya mandatory best guess answer.

1. Expect a rising intonation on what, and not a low fall(Prosody issue)

2. Unclear why best guess answer is required, and why ittypically gets a rising tune (Licensing issue).

3. Doesn’t straightforwardly account for the approximativemeaning (Core meaning issue).

More on these issues in Appendix I.

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 19

Semantics

H2: what as QA pair: Issues

QA pairTreat utterances with what as an in-situ question, followed bya mandatory best guess answer.

1. Expect a rising intonation on what, and not a low fall(Prosody issue)

2. Unclear why best guess answer is required, and why ittypically gets a rising tune (Licensing issue).

3. Doesn’t straightforwardly account for the approximativemeaning (Core meaning issue).

More on these issues in Appendix I.

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 19

Semantics

H2: what as QA pair: Issues

QA pairTreat utterances with what as an in-situ question, followed bya mandatory best guess answer.

1. Expect a rising intonation on what, and not a low fall(Prosody issue)

2. Unclear why best guess answer is required, and why ittypically gets a rising tune (Licensing issue).

3. Doesn’t straightforwardly account for the approximativemeaning (Core meaning issue).

More on these issues in Appendix I.

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 19

Semantics

H2: what as QA pair: Issues

QA pairTreat utterances with what as an in-situ question, followed bya mandatory best guess answer.

1. Expect a rising intonation on what, and not a low fall(Prosody issue)

2. Unclear why best guess answer is required, and why ittypically gets a rising tune (Licensing issue).

3. Doesn’t straightforwardly account for the approximativemeaning (Core meaning issue).

More on these issues in Appendix I.

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 19

Semantics

H3: what as approximative

Conventional meaning of whatSpeaker is not committed to the exact value of thecomplement, but instead approximates the value (selectedfrom a contextually salient scale, as in Hirschberg, 1985).

Two sketches1. Alternative semantics

2. Inquisitive semantics

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 20

Semantics

H3: what as approximative

Conventional meaning of whatSpeaker is not committed to the exact value of thecomplement, but instead approximates the value (selectedfrom a contextually salient scale, as in Hirschberg, 1985).

Two sketches1. Alternative semantics

2. Inquisitive semantics

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 20

Alternative semantics

Sentence operatorThe element what is a sentence operator jitterC which takesthe ps-skeleton of a proposition and returns a set ofpropositions obtained by evaluating the ps-skeleton atassignment functions from a contextually restricted domain C.

(13) Ps-skeleton: F-marked constituents translated asdesignated variables. (Rooth, 1985)

(14) Two variable assignments: (Kratzer, 1991)

a. Interpret an ordinary variable v of type τ :[[vτ ]]

g,h = g(vτ )

b. Interpret a designated variable V of type τ :[[Vτ ]]g,h : h(Vτ )

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 21

Alternative semantics

(15) You’ve been here, what, two years?

a. F-marked: you’ve been here [two]F years

b. Ps-skeleton: you’ve been here V years

c. P-set: {p : ∃h.[p = [[(15b)]]g,h]}

=

You’ve been here 0 yearsYou’ve been here 1 yearYou’ve been here 2 yearsYou’ve been here 3 yearsYou’ve been here 4 yearsYou’ve been here 5 years

...

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 22

Alternative semantics

ApproximationI The P-set gives us a huge space of possibilities, much like

a question as the set of possible answers (Hamblin, 1973).I We can treat the contribution of what as restricting that

set via an approximation of answers that cluster aroundthe asserted value.

You’ve been here 0 yearsYou’ve been here 1 yearYou’ve been here 2 yearsYou’ve been here 3 yearsYou’ve been here 4 yearsYou’ve been here 5 years

...

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 23

Alternative semantics

ApproximationI The P-set gives us a huge space of possibilities, much like

a question as the set of possible answers (Hamblin, 1973).I We can treat the contribution of what as restricting that

set via an approximation of answers that cluster aroundthe asserted value.

You’ve been here 0 yearsYou’ve been here 1 yearYou’ve been here 2 yearsYou’ve been here 3 yearsYou’ve been here 4 yearsYou’ve been here 5 years

...

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 23

Alternative semantics

Cluster of assignment functions

Restrict assignment functions h to those that deliver values forV within a contextually restricted domain C.

Slack intervalLet I be the interval consisting of values (from a contextuallydetermined scale S) centering around cn, the value givenexplicitly in the utterance by some index ±i. ,I = {x : cSn−i ≤ x ≤ cSn+i}.

Assignment clusterLet C be a set of assignment functions h for designatedvariables V, such that for any h ∈ C : h(V) ∈ I.

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 24

Alternative semantics

Meaning of whatTake what to operate on the ps-skeleton of its complement p′

returning a set of propositions obtained by substituting valuesfor V from all assignment functions h ∈ C :

(16) For proposition p, let p′ be the ps-skeleton:jitterC (p′) = {p : p = [[p′]]g,h∈C}

(17) You’ve been here, what, two years?

a. F-marked: you’ve been here [two]F yearsb. Ps-skeleton: you’ve been here V yearsc. jitterC [[(15b)]]g,h∈C

=

You’ve been here 1 yearsYou’ve been here 2 yearsYou’ve been here 3 years

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 25

Inquisitive semantics

In Inquisitive Semantics, propositions seen as proposals toenhance the common ground in some way (e.g., Groenendijkand Roelofsen, 2009).

Informative A proposition φ is informative just in case there isa possibility for φ and a possibility that φexcludes; proposes change to CG.

Inquisitive A proposition φ is inquisitive just in case it hastwo possibilities; raise issues.

Informative InquisitiveQuestion − +Assertion + −Hybrid + +InsigniVcant − −

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 26

Inquisitive semantics

In Inquisitive Semantics, propositions seen as proposals toenhance the common ground in some way (e.g., Groenendijkand Roelofsen, 2009).

Informative A proposition φ is informative just in case there isa possibility for φ and a possibility that φexcludes; proposes change to CG.

Inquisitive A proposition φ is inquisitive just in case it hastwo possibilities; raise issues.

Informative InquisitiveQuestion − +Assertion + −Hybrid + +InsigniVcant − −

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 26

Inquisitive semantics

(18) You’ve been here, what, two years?

Informative Proposal to add the fact that you’ve beenhere for approximately two years.

Inquisitive Raises issue of how long you’ve been here.

Optionality of discourse movesWhether the issue raised by what is resolved depends on howimportant that issue is to advancing the discourse – whetherthe issue is related to the current Question under Discussion(Roberts, 1996) or is on the Table (Farkas and Bruce, 2010).

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 27

Inquisitive semantics

(18) You’ve been here, what, two years?

Informative Proposal to add the fact that you’ve beenhere for approximately two years.

Inquisitive Raises issue of how long you’ve been here.

Optionality of discourse movesWhether the issue raised by what is resolved depends on howimportant that issue is to advancing the discourse – whetherthe issue is related to the current Question under Discussion(Roberts, 1996) or is on the Table (Farkas and Bruce, 2010).

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 27

Conclusion

Open issues

' On either account, utterances with what arequestion-like, but in potentially diUerent ways . . .

' Does the rising tune on the complement contributeanything to the meaning? Can this contribution becaptured in the above accounts?

' What is the relation between the what-marker and otherhesitation markers (uh, um, pause) and approximations(like, about, etc.)?

(18) You’ve been here, what, like about two years orsomething like that?

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 28

Conclusion

Summary

OUered the core descriptive properties of inter-sententialwhat

Argued that what should be analyzed as a markerconveying Speaker uncertainty

Sketched two possible analyses for capturing themeaning formally

Thanks!

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 29

Conclusion

Summary

OUered the core descriptive properties of inter-sententialwhat

Argued that what should be analyzed as a markerconveying Speaker uncertainty

Sketched two possible analyses for capturing themeaning formally

Thanks!

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 29

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Thanks to . . .

Angelika Kratzer, Lisa Selkirk and members of theirspring 2009 seminar at UMass Amherst,

My students at Pomona College in my 2012 seminar oninformation structure, and

Jay Atlas, Noah Constant, Lyn Frazier, Chris Potts andRadek Simik for helpful comments and(counter-)examples.

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 30

Conclusion

References I

Dehé, N. and Y. Kavalova (2006). The syntax, pragmatics, and prosody ofparenthetical what. English Language and Linguistics 10(2), 289–320.

Eggers, D. (2006). What is the what. New York: Vintage Books.

Farkas, D. F. and K. B. Bruce (2010, 2). On reacting to assertions and polarquestions. Journal of Semantics 27(1), 81–118.

Groenendijk, J. and F. Roelofsen (2009). Inquisitive semantics andpragmatics. Presented at the Workshop on Language, Communicationand Rational Agency, Stanford University.

Gunlogson, C. (2001). True to Form: Rising and Falling Declaratives asQuestions in English. Ph. D. thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz,Santa Cruz.

Hamblin, C. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations ofLanguage 10, 41 – 53.

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 31

Conclusion

References II

Hammett, D. (1929). Red Harvest. New York, NY: Vintage Crime/BlackLizard.

Hirschberg, J. (1985). A Theory of Scalar Implicature (Natural Languages,Pragmatics, Inference). Ph. D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

Kratzer, A. (1991). The representation of focus. In A. von Stechow andD. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch derzeitgenoessischen Forschung, pp. 805–825. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Roberts, C. (1996). Information structure: Towards an integrated formaltheory of pragmatics. In J. H. Yoon and A. Kathol (Eds.), OSUWPLVolume 49: Papers in Semantics. The Ohio State University.

Rooth, M. (1985). Association with Focus. Ph. D. thesis, University ofMassachusetts, Amherst, Amherst, MA.

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 32

Appendix I

H2: what as QA pair: Issues

QA pairTreat utterances with what as an in-situ question, followed bya mandatory best guess answer.

1. Expect a rising intonation on what, and not a low fall(Prosody issue)

2. Unclear why best guess answer is required, and why ittypically gets a rising tune (Licensing issue).

3. Doesn’t straightforwardly account for the approximativemeaning (Core meaning issue).

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 33

Appendix I

H2: what as QA pair: Issues

QA pairTreat utterances with what as an in-situ question, followed bya mandatory best guess answer.

1. Expect a rising intonation on what, and not a low fall(Prosody issue)

2. Unclear why best guess answer is required, and why ittypically gets a rising tune (Licensing issue).

3. Doesn’t straightforwardly account for the approximativemeaning (Core meaning issue).

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 33

Appendix I

H2: what as QA pair: Issues

QA pairTreat utterances with what as an in-situ question, followed bya mandatory best guess answer.

1. Expect a rising intonation on what, and not a low fall(Prosody issue)

2. Unclear why best guess answer is required, and why ittypically gets a rising tune (Licensing issue).

3. Doesn’t straightforwardly account for the approximativemeaning (Core meaning issue).

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 33

Appendix I

H2: what as QA pair: Issues

QA pairTreat utterances with what as an in-situ question, followed bya mandatory best guess answer.

1. Expect a rising intonation on what, and not a low fall(Prosody issue)

2. Unclear why best guess answer is required, and why ittypically gets a rising tune (Licensing issue).

3. Doesn’t straightforwardly account for the approximativemeaning (Core meaning issue).

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 33

Appendix I

H2: what as QA pair: IssueI Low or low-fall prosody possible (but not necessary)

when the Addressee is expected to know the answer, or isbeing coerced into giving one:

(19) [Context: Talking to a young pupil]And so two plus two is what?

I Otherwise, required to provide more with this prosody:

(20) [Context: Talking to friend about how long she haslived in the area]

a. # You’ve been here what?

b. You’ve been here, what, a year?

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 34

Appendix I

H2: what as QA pairLicensing issue

I Stipulate that some kinds of questions require abest-guess answer immediately after.

I Radical departure from standard licensing conditions

Core meaning issue

I Question account has diXculty capturing cases whenutterance with what goes unanswered (∼40% of cases incorpus).

I Fails to capture intuition that what serves to approximateits complement.

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 35

Appendix I

H2: what as QA pairLicensing issue

I Stipulate that some kinds of questions require abest-guess answer immediately after.

I Radical departure from standard licensing conditions

Core meaning issue

I Question account has diXculty capturing cases whenutterance with what goes unanswered (∼40% of cases incorpus).

I Fails to capture intuition that what serves to approximateits complement.

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 35

Appendix I

H2: what as QA pairLicensing issue

I Stipulate that some kinds of questions require abest-guess answer immediately after.

I Radical departure from standard licensing conditions

Core meaning issue

I Question account has diXculty capturing cases whenutterance with what goes unanswered (∼40% of cases incorpus).

I Fails to capture intuition that what serves to approximateits complement.

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 35

Appendix II

Discourse

AssumptionCooperative discourse participants should attempt to answer(or at least acknowledge) direct questions raised by aninterlocutor.

EmpiricallyTwo kinds of cases

1. Discourses where issue raised by what is resolved

2. Discourses where issue raised by what goes unresolved

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 36

Appendix II

Two discourse uses for whatAdopting a Question under Discussion (QuD) framework(Roberts, 1996).

ResolveIssue relates directly to theQuD, then a cooperativeAddressee will attempt toresolve the approximation.

Don’t resolveIssue does not directly relate tothe QuD, then a cooperativeAddressee should not resolvethe approximation.

Cooperative speakers are expected to use what accordingly;interpret what as question only when:

1. It raises issue relevant to QuD, and

2. The addressee is in a position to resolve it

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 37

Appendix II

Switchboard

NP PP Number Total

Response 7 1 3 11 (61%)No response 0 0 7 7 (39%)

7 (39%) 1 (< 1%) 10 (60%) 18 (100%)

Table: Categorization of 18 instances of the what-marker found inthe Switchboard corpus

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 38

Appendix II

Switchboard

NP PP Number Total

Response 7 1 3 11 (61%)No response 0 0 7 7 (39%)

7 (39%) 1 (< 1%) 10 (60%) 18 (100%)

Table: Categorization of 18 instances of the what-marker found inthe Switchboard corpus

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 38

Appendix II

Switchboard

NP PP Number Total

Response 7 1 3 11 (61%)No response 0 0 7 7 (39%)

7 (39%) 1 (< 1%) 10 (60%) 18 (100%)

Table: Categorization of 18 instances of the what-marker found inthe Switchboard corpus

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 38

Appendix II

Strategy 1: Resolution

Addressee familiar about issue raised = Question

(21) 1 utt1: okay,

1 utt2: I missed a part of it

1 utt3: we’re to talk about what, lawns and gardens

2 utt1: lawn and garden work and what you enjoy andwhat kind of work you do

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 39

Appendix II

Strategy 2: No resolution

Addressee unfamiliar about issue raised = Approximation

(22) 164 utt3: I moved down here from Chicago, what,twenty-three years ago

165 utt1: {f oh, } uh-huh

166 utt1: – [ and, + ] to Lewisville –

Jesse A. Harris: Interjective what, CUSP 5 @ UCSD 40